Outrage is not an accurate description of my feelings right now. Disgust is more the word. Wednesday, August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker, with the stroke of his pen, struck down Proposition 8 which declared marriage to be what it is, a union between a man and a woman. It is also the will of more than 7 million people in the State of California.
Judge Walker argues that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Are you kidding me? This is not about DISCRIMINATION.
“OPPOSITION TO CALLING A RELATIONSHIP WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF BEING A MARRIAGE – A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN OR. A WOMAN AND A WOMAN WHO ENGAGE IN NON-MARITAL SEXUAL ACTS TOGETHER FOR A PROTRACTED PERIOD OF TIME IS NOT DISCRIMINATION!!”
Neither is it about MARRIAGE, but about a small minority of people wishing to impose their beliefs on the majority. Being able to get “married” is not the goal here. Homosexuals don’t want tolerance or equality. They want you to not only accept their choice of sexual activities, but to approve and even consider a man having sex with a man (with all that entails), and a woman with a woman as normal. It’s not and it never will be normal.
If the state guarantees homosexual marriage as a “right”, it will open the floodgates to all sorts of open indoctrination in the schools, churches, and the work place. It will also open the floodgates to all other kinds of perversions … men and women with animals, relatives with relatives, 3 men with 2 women or vice verse-versa. It will be endless!
This is how I feel right now – sick and disgusted.
posted by rightthingtodo on August 6, 2010
It’s so good to see that I am not the only one who feels sick and disgusted by Judge Walker’s ruling.
Some other brave opinions:
Gary Bauer of American Values
Thursday, August 5, 2010
[Due to severe thunderstorms and widespread power outages yesterday, we were unable to send Thursday’s report. Thank you for your patience.]
Are We Free?
Yesterday, a federal judge in San Francisco discovered a previously unknown right to homosexual “marriage” in the United States Constitution. For more than 200 years, past presidents, Congresses, Supreme Court justices and the American people had all missed it.
In fact, previous presidents, Congresses, Supreme Courts and the people had expressly rejected the radical notion of men “marrying” other men. In 1972, the Supreme Court dismissed a case from Minnesota seeking to create such a right. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act passed the House of Representatives with an 83% majority, and it passed the Senate with 85 out of 100 votes. It was signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton. Since then, the citizens of 31 states have voted to preserve marriage as the union of man and one woman.
But one federal judge thinks he knows better than the rest of us. Yesterday, he struck down Proposition 8, California’s marriage law, and invalidated the will of seven million California voters.
He did so in the most expansive language possible, and the Left is hailing the ruling as a victory for liberty. The Left has a bizarre notion of liberty. It applauds when the federal government dictates how you spend your money and when a single judge invalidates the votes of seven million people.
The thrust of Judge Vaughn Walker’s opinion is that centuries of normal marriage were nothing more than homophobia. The case will be appealed and will likely end up at the Supreme Court. Four justices are very likely against us and four are probably with us. The deciding vote isl Justice Anthony Kennedy.
If this new right to same-sex “marriage” is upheld on appeal, every voter-approved constitutional amendment and the laws of more than 40 states will be overturned. And if that happens, I have yet to hear one liberal explain why polygamy wouldn’t be legal too. After all, if it is discriminatory to limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman, on what legal basis can we discriminate against the union of one man and three women or three men who all want to be “married” to one another?
Are we still a nation of the people, by the people and for the people? Consider this: Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked what Missouri’s 71%-to-29% vote against ObamaCare’s individual mandate meant? His response, and I quote, “Nothing.”
The path that we are on, where overwhelming majorities of the people are routinely told that their opinions mean “nothing,” will destroy this country. America was built on the premise that our government derives its legitimacy from the “consent of the governed.” Yet…
When Arizona’s elected legislature passed a law to protect its citizens, the federal government sued the state and a Clinton-appointed judge said in effect, “I don’t care.”
The people of New York City don’t want a mega-mosque built at Ground Zero, but the mosque goes forward while liberal elites lecture us about tolerance.
The American people don’t want the government telling them what they must buy, but that’s exactly what ObamaCare does.
Californians have voted twice – along with 30 other states – to protect the traditional meaning of marriage, but one leftist judge asserts that he knows better than seven million of his fellow citizens.
The Left frequently dresses up its tyranny with the rhetoric of civil rights. But there is no right more important than the right to vote, to be self-governed. Yet every time the Left rewards one of its special interest groups, it undermines the votes of millions of other Americans. The very foundations of our constitutional republic are under attack.
Rush Limbaugh said his inbox today is filled with messages from outraged Americans. I’m outraged too, but I am not giving up. The one thing we absolutely cannot do is give in to despair, become demoralized and give up. Men and women of faith must engage in the public policy battles of our day. The culture war is real, and only one side can ultimately prevail.
ACTION ITEM: I want everyone reading this report to do two things. First, encourage your pastor to speak up about the importance of traditional marriage and the importance of voting. Ask permission to host a voter registration drive at your church. We need leadership from our pulpits now more than ever.
Second, find five friends who share our values but who are not registered to vote. Get them registered! You can do so quickly and easily at our website.
posted by rightthingtodo on August 6, 2010
Gary Randall of Faith and Freedom Network
Natural marriage, as between one man and one woman, was overruled this afternoon by California Judge Vaughn Walker as he struck down Proposition 8.
In the 136-page ruling, the judge said, “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 Prop. 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
Natural marriage is more than a notion about superiority. Only a judge blinded by his own activism could look past the fact that natural marriage has been the cornerstone of all successful civilizations in recorded history. There are valid reasons for that historical principle. It has nothing to do with superiority.
The judge said, “Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Using the same logic, this judge would also likely be inclined to rule in favor of polygamy or even group marriages.
In that Prop 8 was passed by a majority of the people (52%), California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were the original defendants. It will not surprise you that they did not support Prop. 8 in court.
This case will be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. Given their history, they will likely uphold Walker’s decision. The case will then go to the US Supreme Court.
The assault on marriage and family continues.
Newt Gingrich: Gay Marriage Ruling ‘Outrageous’
In a statement released on his website late Wednesday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted a federal judge’s decision overturning California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.
“Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy.
“Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.
posted by rightthingtodo August 6, 2010
Sets Aside Proposition 8
By Deacon Keith Fournier8/5/2010
Perry v. Schwarzenegger Opinion makes history, set on a path to the US Supreme Court
What the proponents of the Homosexual Equivalency Movement demand is that the Police Power of the State be used to force people to call a relationship which is incapable of being a marriage to be a marriage, or else. It amounts to a new kind of alchemy and the alchemists are the judges being used in this New Cultural Revolution. Not all relationships can form the basis for a marriage.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA (Catholic Online) – The crowds swelled in number waving homosexual Rainbow flags and signs emblazoned with the latest popular slogan of the Homosexual Equivalency movement “All Love is Equal”. The opinion of Judge Vaughan Walker was a foregone conclusion. He heard 13 days filled with testimony and legal arguments in his review of California’s Proposition 8 which declared marriage to be what it is, a union between a man and a woman. He had signaled his leanings many times throughout the trial. Now it is clear, he has decided to make history by issuing the following ruling:
“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.”
With the stroke of a judicial pen this Judge set aside Proposition 8, which reflected the clear will of the people of California. He chose to become an icon for the New Cultural Revolution, lending the authority of his office to a fringe group who oppose the will of the people and the clear truth confirmed by the Natural Law about the nature of Marriage. He has succumbed to a mistaken notion of his judicial power which deludes him into thinking he can change the very structure of reality. As to the rejecting will of the people of California expressed by the passage of Proposition Eight, he wrote:
“Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,…; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.”
“Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants anddefendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58″
The proponents of this New Cultural Revolution demand a legal equivalency between homosexual relationships and true marriages. In their zeal some believe they are fashioning a better world. They reject the truth concerning marriage, the implications on children, the structure of society and the real common good. Authentic marriage, and the family and society founded upon it, are the foundation of a free society. This is not only a “religious” position, it is accepted across cultures and has informed Western Civilization. It is affirmed by the Natural law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason. Marriage – and the family founded upon it – is the first society, the first church, the first hospital, the first school, the first economy, the first government and the first mediating structure of our entire social order.
The “talking points” parroted by most of the main stream media all day long were taken right out of the propaganda playbook of the Homosexual Equivalency Activists playbook. Groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund know what they are doing and are well funded. They are trying to make a comparison between this incorrect opinion and the correct opinion in the 1967 Supreme Court Case of Loving v. Virginia. That correct opinion properly struck down as unconstitutional the Virginia law prohibiting marriage between a black man and white woman or black woman and white man.
The comparison the Homosexual Equivalency Activists make is an utterly false one. The Lovings, whose marriage became the basis of that important US Supreme Court opinion, were a man and a woman. As such they were capable of and entered into a marriage. It was an unjust law which declared their proper and loving union to be “illegal” because they had differing skin pigmentation! It was rightly struck down as an egregious violation of the Equal protection clause.
What the proponents of the Homosexual Equivalency Movement demand is that the Police Power of the State be used to force people to call a relationship which is incapable of being a marriage – a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman who engage in non-marital sexual acts together for a protracted period of time- be legally treated as a marriage. It amounts to a new kind of alchemy and the alchemists are the judges being used in this New Cultural Revolution. Opposition to calling homosexual partnerships equivalent to true marriage in the law has nothing to do with discrimination. Not all relationships can form the basis for a marriage. Not all “love” is equal, in spite of the slogans in the posters waved all afternoon outside that Courthouse.
This case will now be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, there is little doubt it will end up at the US Supreme Court.