kong
02-08-2012, 03:28 PM
Proposition 8: Two Federal Judges Decree, Marriage Not Between a Man and a Woman
This panel's decision will be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, it is on track for the United States Supreme Court
Two Judges of a Three Judge Panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that marriage is not between a man and a woman. They further decreed that the people of California could not affirm by referendum that marriage is between one man and one woman. These two judges determined that they are the new arbiters of the nature of reality. Like alchemists of old who purported to change profane metals into gold, these judges profess to be able to make something what it can never be by way of judicial fiat. We must defend authentic marriage.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA. (Catholic Online) - Two Judges of a Three Judge Panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took it upon themselves to rule from the Bench that marriage is not between a man and a woman. They decreed that the people of California could not affirm by referendum that marriage is between one man and one woman. These two judges determined that they are the new arbiters of the nature of reality. Like alchemists of old who purported to change profane metals into gold, these judges profess to be able to make something what it can never be by way of judicial fiat. The third Judge on the panel, Judge N.R. Smith, disagreed. He opined that he was not convinced that Proposition 8's purpose was not rationally related to furthering the interests of promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting. The two judges declared that "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." They then ruled that Proposition 8 violated the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause. Why? Because it affirmed what is objectively true, that marriage is only between one man and one woman. This panel's decision will be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, it is on track for the United States Supreme Court. It has implications for our future. We must defend authentic marriage and the family and society founded upon it. We must secure the moral foundations of a truly free society. Andy Pugno, the General Counsel for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition told the Press on Tuesday, "We will immediately appeal this misguided decision that disregards the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to restore marriage as the unique union of only a man and woman." I remember the day that Federal District Judge Vaughan Walker's opinion striking down Proposition 8 was released, August 4, 2010. The crowds outside the Courthouse waved homosexual Rainbow flags and signs emblazoned with the latest popular slogan of the Homosexual Equivalency movement "All Love is Equal".
Of course, that slogan bespeaks the real agenda at work here. The mistaken opinion of Judge Walker was a foregone conclusion. He heard 13 days of testimony and legal arguments in his review of California's Proposition 8. He signaled his leanings many times throughout the trial. The proposition affirmed marriage to be what it is, a union between a man and a woman. It was properly passed by 7 million Californians. The Judge did not like Proposition 8. Questions were raised concerning his impartiality. He was then only rumored to be a practicing homosexual, living with his male paramour. Months after issuing a 138 page opinion - which the homosexual equivalency movement viewed as a great accomplishment in their cultural revolution - the judge retired. He then told reporters he was indeed homosexual and had been living with a male doctor for ten years.
Walker wrote: "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." So, in an act of judicial imperialism, Judge Walker set aside Proposition 8. He also became an icon for the New Cultural Revolution being advanced by the Homosexual Equivalency movement. He used the authority of his judicial office to advance the agenda of a fringe group who opposed the will of the people.
He also determined he had the authority to deny the truth confirmed by the Natural Law about the nature of authentic Marriage. He succumbed to the mistaken notion that his judicial office gave him the ability to change the structure of reality. Members of the homosexual equivalency movement insist that there is a moral equivalency between homosexual relationships and marriage. However, they go much further. They now demand that a legal equivalency be given to homosexual relationships and marriage in the civil law and want the Police Power of the State to enforce it. They reject the truth concerning the nature of marriage, show a disregard for the rights of children and care little about the true common good of society. Authentic marriage, and the family and society founded upon it, are the foundation of a free, just and healthy society. To insist that marriage is between one man and one woman is not simply a "religious" position; it is an objective truth. It is affirmed by the Natural law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason. It is also accepted across cultures. The "talking points" parroted by the main stream media the day of the original Walker decision came right out of the Homosexual Equivalency Activists playbook. That is precisely what happened on Tuesday after the two Federal Judges issued their decree.The same talking points began to appear in the media. Groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund have tried to force a comparison between that incorrect opinion of Judge Walker and the correct opinion in the 1967 Supreme Court Case of Loving v. Virginia. The Loving 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 is false. The Lovings - whose marriage became the basis of the US Supreme Court opinion - were a man and a woman. As such they were capable of and entered into a true marriage. An unjust law declared their proper and loving union to be "illegal" because they had differing skin pigmentation! It was properly struck down as an egregious violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The effort to draw an analogy to between race and how one engages in non-marital sexual acts is not only ludicrous it is socially irresponsible. Opposition to calling homosexual partnerships the legal equivalent of marriage 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 of the homosexual equivalency movement.
What the Homosexual Equivalency Movement demands is that the Police Power of the State force everyone to call that which is incapable of being a marriage - a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman who engage in sexual acts together for a protracted period of time- to be a marriage. The opinion of Judge Walker in striking down Proposition 8 was appealed to the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The Appeal had to be filed by citizens and public interest groups defending marriage because the Governor and the Attorney General refused to obey the law and discharge their official duties. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then turned to the California State Supreme Court and asked for a legal opinion concerning the California Constitution; whether the defenders of Marriage and the proposition passed by the people of California had the legal standing to file the Appeal. That was the sole question posed to the State Supreme Court. On November 17, 2011, in a 61 page opinion, and a seven page concurring opinion, the California State Supreme Court answered the question unanimously. That is what led to this opinion of these two Federal Judges issued on Tuesday, February 7, 2012. Defenders of Marriage and Proposition 8 - supporters of marriage - have never been confident of any reasonable opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is an activist Court committed to the same kind of cultural and social agenda evidenced by Judge Walker's opinion.
So, what really happened on Tuesday, February 7, 2012? Not much. The Proposition 8 Fight Continues in California: Two Federal Judges Ruled that Marriage is not Between a Man and a Woman. They are wrong.
This panel's decision will be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, it is on track for the United States Supreme Court
Two Judges of a Three Judge Panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that marriage is not between a man and a woman. They further decreed that the people of California could not affirm by referendum that marriage is between one man and one woman. These two judges determined that they are the new arbiters of the nature of reality. Like alchemists of old who purported to change profane metals into gold, these judges profess to be able to make something what it can never be by way of judicial fiat. We must defend authentic marriage.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA. (Catholic Online) - Two Judges of a Three Judge Panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took it upon themselves to rule from the Bench that marriage is not between a man and a woman. They decreed that the people of California could not affirm by referendum that marriage is between one man and one woman. These two judges determined that they are the new arbiters of the nature of reality. Like alchemists of old who purported to change profane metals into gold, these judges profess to be able to make something what it can never be by way of judicial fiat. The third Judge on the panel, Judge N.R. Smith, disagreed. He opined that he was not convinced that Proposition 8's purpose was not rationally related to furthering the interests of promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting. The two judges declared that "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." They then ruled that Proposition 8 violated the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause. Why? Because it affirmed what is objectively true, that marriage is only between one man and one woman. This panel's decision will be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, it is on track for the United States Supreme Court. It has implications for our future. We must defend authentic marriage and the family and society founded upon it. We must secure the moral foundations of a truly free society. Andy Pugno, the General Counsel for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition told the Press on Tuesday, "We will immediately appeal this misguided decision that disregards the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to restore marriage as the unique union of only a man and woman." I remember the day that Federal District Judge Vaughan Walker's opinion striking down Proposition 8 was released, August 4, 2010. The crowds outside the Courthouse waved homosexual Rainbow flags and signs emblazoned with the latest popular slogan of the Homosexual Equivalency movement "All Love is Equal".
Of course, that slogan bespeaks the real agenda at work here. The mistaken opinion of Judge Walker was a foregone conclusion. He heard 13 days of testimony and legal arguments in his review of California's Proposition 8. He signaled his leanings many times throughout the trial. The proposition affirmed marriage to be what it is, a union between a man and a woman. It was properly passed by 7 million Californians. The Judge did not like Proposition 8. Questions were raised concerning his impartiality. He was then only rumored to be a practicing homosexual, living with his male paramour. Months after issuing a 138 page opinion - which the homosexual equivalency movement viewed as a great accomplishment in their cultural revolution - the judge retired. He then told reporters he was indeed homosexual and had been living with a male doctor for ten years.
Walker wrote: "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." So, in an act of judicial imperialism, Judge Walker set aside Proposition 8. He also became an icon for the New Cultural Revolution being advanced by the Homosexual Equivalency movement. He used the authority of his judicial office to advance the agenda of a fringe group who opposed the will of the people.
He also determined he had the authority to deny the truth confirmed by the Natural Law about the nature of authentic Marriage. He succumbed to the mistaken notion that his judicial office gave him the ability to change the structure of reality. Members of the homosexual equivalency movement insist that there is a moral equivalency between homosexual relationships and marriage. However, they go much further. They now demand that a legal equivalency be given to homosexual relationships and marriage in the civil law and want the Police Power of the State to enforce it. They reject the truth concerning the nature of marriage, show a disregard for the rights of children and care little about the true common good of society. Authentic marriage, and the family and society founded upon it, are the foundation of a free, just and healthy society. To insist that marriage is between one man and one woman is not simply a "religious" position; it is an objective truth. It is affirmed by the Natural law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason. It is also accepted across cultures. The "talking points" parroted by the main stream media the day of the original Walker decision came right out of the Homosexual Equivalency Activists playbook. That is precisely what happened on Tuesday after the two Federal Judges issued their decree.The same talking points began to appear in the media. Groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund have tried to force a comparison between that incorrect opinion of Judge Walker and the correct opinion in the 1967 Supreme Court Case of Loving v. Virginia. The Loving 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 is false. The Lovings - whose marriage became the basis of the US Supreme Court opinion - were a man and a woman. As such they were capable of and entered into a true marriage. An unjust law declared their proper and loving union to be "illegal" because they had differing skin pigmentation! It was properly struck down as an egregious violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The effort to draw an analogy to between race and how one engages in non-marital sexual acts is not only ludicrous it is socially irresponsible. Opposition to calling homosexual partnerships the legal equivalent of marriage 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 of the homosexual equivalency movement.
What the Homosexual Equivalency Movement demands is that the Police Power of the State force everyone to call that which is incapable of being a marriage - a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman who engage in sexual acts together for a protracted period of time- to be a marriage. The opinion of Judge Walker in striking down Proposition 8 was appealed to the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The Appeal had to be filed by citizens and public interest groups defending marriage because the Governor and the Attorney General refused to obey the law and discharge their official duties. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then turned to the California State Supreme Court and asked for a legal opinion concerning the California Constitution; whether the defenders of Marriage and the proposition passed by the people of California had the legal standing to file the Appeal. That was the sole question posed to the State Supreme Court. On November 17, 2011, in a 61 page opinion, and a seven page concurring opinion, the California State Supreme Court answered the question unanimously. That is what led to this opinion of these two Federal Judges issued on Tuesday, February 7, 2012. Defenders of Marriage and Proposition 8 - supporters of marriage - have never been confident of any reasonable opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is an activist Court committed to the same kind of cultural and social agenda evidenced by Judge Walker's opinion.
So, what really happened on Tuesday, February 7, 2012? Not much. The Proposition 8 Fight Continues in California: Two Federal Judges Ruled that Marriage is not Between a Man and a Woman. They are wrong.