The sweeping and off-topic nature of some of U. S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's language reveals his agenda as being other than what his job called for. Had he focused on whether the Constitution requires the redefinition of "marriage" to accommodate various sexual perversions (hint: it does not), the trial would have been short and decisive. However, the judge was out to marginalize "religious" Americans and mainstream one particular class of sexual pervert and, by golly and by his robe and gavel, he did.
Judge Walker did not examine the proposition to see if it was constitutional. Had he done so, as I said, it would have been a pretty brief trial.
Rather, Walker put the voters on trial, read their minds, weighed the value of their religious/moral convictions, and decided they did not impress him. We who voted for Proposition 8 were tried and found guilty, and now we are disenfranchised, as an activist judge invents something (as far as I know) never seen nor embraced in any society.
I don't have time for much more just now, so I'll point you to some good essays.
Frank's is super, of course
Al Mohler just begins to hint at some of the breathtaking enormity of the judge's overstepping
Then transition from Mohler's cool discourse to James White's red-hot diatribe, noting what I pointed out yesterday about the judge's vested interests.
Fred Butler's thoughts
I'll add any other bright lights as they pop on.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
53 comments:
"Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians”
So what about the belief that killing is bad? Or the belief that telling a lie is bad? Don't those beliefs hurt the people who commit the crimes?
The judge doesn't realize the irony of his statement...that hurt is the sting of conviction that should lead us to repentance. Of course, maybe the judge has become desensitized to his conscience and is hoping his ruling will serve to do the same for all people.
It's Romans 1 playing out...suppressing the truth...turned over to their own sin...how sad it is because he doesn't know where that path leads to.
Judge Walker: "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians”
The law must protect people from harm. Gays and lesbians are harmed by these religious beliefs that same-sex behavior is sinful. Ergo, the law must go after the institutions and teachers promoting these harmful religious beliefs.
Robert, to answer your question, I was just listening to a Prager podcast. Apparently an ever increasing percentage of our youth believe lying and stealing are acceptable. And we already know about killing. There's no problem killing unborn babies and the sick and elderly are pretty close.
If you don't have a theological underpinning to morality, then morality is whatever you decide it is.
Wow! Do you seriously equate homosexuals with murderers? That's extreme.
As a non-American I need to ask: does the constitution specifically cite marriage as exclusively heterosexual?
You feel that the judge set out to marginalize religious Americans. Could it be that he set out to prevent homosexual Americans from being marginalized?
The decision does not make homosexual marriage mandatory. Nor does it prevent heterosexual marriage.
I read in one article that no evidence was provided showing that the homosexual marriages which have already taken place (some 18,000 according to one report) have had any deleterious effect on marriage as a whole.
I found Albert Mohler's words to be extremely subjective. How does this impact on 'religious liberty' unless that term means that everything should be according to religious principles. If so, which religion? Which arm? Which 'sects' extent of various views?
The history and origins of marriage show us that many societies included homosexual marriage without blinking and eye.
Who made the equation with murderers?
Of course it has caused harm. This is the "Other than that, how was the theater, Mrs. Lincoln?" moment. The very fact of forcing a society to redefine a long-established institution to accommodate one perversion is itself harm. Judging the hearts of voters is harm. Judicial activism is harm.
Homosexuals have every exact same right as every other American, as do rapists, murderers, and child molesters. That isn't what they want. They want their perversion to be accorded civil rights.
That's for starters. I think a more thoughtful read of the linked articles would answer your questions further, if they're real questions.
What is your fascination with legitimizing homosexuality? I haven't noticed you being as eager to legitimatize rape or child molesting or other perversions.
DJP, I found the comparison of harming gays and lesbians with harming murderers and liars to be emotive and extreme.
I have read those articles, and more, and find nothing more than subjective complaints made on the basis of morals and beliefs according to faith.
Did slaves have the same rights as every other American? What did it take for them to achieve civil rights?
I'm disappointed to see the comparison between homosexuals and rapists and child molesters appear again. There is a quantum difference.
As I said, I don't know what your constitution says about marriage itself. But I do know what the history and origins of marriage tell us.
I have known a few homosexuals for many years. I feel safer in their company than a lot of women do when they are alone with heterosexual men.
I'm missing something. Where is that comparison?
Slaves did not have the same rights. What's the comparison?
Of course rapists, child molestation, other sexually perverse behaviors come up. Why shouldn't they, apart from your preference of the practitioners of one perversion of those of another?
I don't think that you, I or almost anyone else would like to see a return to the days of slavery and it's inherent disregard of both human and civil rights.
Why should homosexuals not have the same civil rights as you and I?
Rapists and child molesters perpetrate non-consensual crimes against others, homosexuals do not.
Homosexuals already do have all the same civil rights as you and I — as do rapists and child molesters. This is not the first time that has been pointed out to you.
What does consensuality have to do with anything?
You and I can get married. Even rapists and child molesters can get married. So why not homosexuals. Therefore they do not have the same rights that you and I do.
Consensuality determines whether it is a sexual crime.
Tell me DJP, do you have any profound objection to homosexuality for reasons other than those based on scripture?
Homosexuals can get married, same as anyone else. Did you not know that? Always have had that right.
Consensuality determines whether it is a sexual crime.
So a mother and a son, sixty-year-old man and an eight-year-old girl(or boy), two brothers, two sisters, fifteen brothers and sisters — any of those combinations want to commit serial sexual acts and call it "marriage," King Rupert rules "yes"?
If not, why not?
The burden of proof is not on me, Rupert, for redefining marriage.
"You and I can get married."
Is that an indirect marriage proposal from Rupert to DJP?
;-)
Yeah, on that: I'm totally not on the market.
Rupert,
Also hailing from Australia, you and I probably got the same amount of education about American history, which in my case is not much. So I'm probably going out on a short thin limb to comment on the whole historicity piece of this situation, but, well, why not?
My understanding is that the Declaration of Independence was the foundational document which frames the thinking of the Constitution that followed it. In the DofI,there is an important clause which states that all people are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." IOW, our rights are inherent, but not independent of the One who endows them. They cannot be defined or redefined by legislation or by simple majority vote. The so-called "civil rights" movement of the sixties was nothing more than the fight to recognize the personhood of people of all colors, and therefore their subsequent right to the things to which all people are entitled (again, by their Creator).
This is not an argument over personhood. This is not about denying homosexuals the rights endowed by their Creator. No one here would ever wish to see homosexuals aborted, stoned, or imprisoned (as they are in other countries).
This is about government for centuries borrowing a religious institution, with the its citizens' permission (because of the obvious benefits to society), redefining the institution for its own purposes, and then demanding that religious institutions do the same. It is a patent violation of the Constitution's First Amendment, which prohibits the free exercise of religion.
By whose definition have they always been able to get married? If that is the case, why did this court case even occur?
The origins and history of marriage show that it is indeed religion and it's adherents who have redefined marriage.
Again I ask, what objections do you have against homosexuality apart from those based on scripture?
Er, that last statement was rather Freudian.
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion is what this ruling does.
The First Amendment of the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law which prohibits etc.
Of course, the fact that this guy is judge and not a Congress-person is another matter entirely. :)
By (at the very least) our country's definition for 200 years and counting; but much older than that, of course.
"Marriage" is a specific relationship between an eligible man and an eligible woman. The court case is because one subset of folks who choose to purse sexual perversion did not want to get married. They want to pursue one particular kind of perversion, and force society against its will to call that "marriage."
As I said, the burden of proof is not on me. The question is to you. Given your Rupert Rule, on the moral authority of Rupert, that "Consensuality determines whether it is a sexual crime," this is now your question:
A mother and a son, sixty-year-old man and an eight-year-old girl(or boy), two brothers, two sisters, fifteen brothers and sisters — any of those combinations want to commit serial sexual acts and call it "marriage," King Rupert rules "yes"?
If not, why not?
Oh dear! I did wonder if someone would misconstrue that, it would appear I was right. And this weeks prize for seizing upon the unintended and making everyone's' eyes pop goes to.... Truth Unites...and Divides - a very apt moniker given the discussion.
We'd make Oscar and Felix look like perfection. But I am no more interested in a relationship with a man than DJP is. And even less interested getting married.
I hear what you are saying Rachael, but the question is to what extent, to what subjects and to what 'creator' is this applied, if at all, beyond the initial statement. It may merely mean we all have rights but it doesn't necessarily follow that there are also defined applications. I see no basis to claim that they are not independent.
Atheists do not have the right to speak of "rights," except as malleable fiat conventions.
To incest I say YUK! The 60 year old man with an 8 year old child is child molestation by dint of uninformed consent and the age of consent in general.
The laws that prevent incestuous marriage are predicated on biological impacts. Even then, it isn't even illegal in all states.
Would you marry your cousin? I certainly wouldn't (mine, not yours, lets not get misinterpreted again). Yet it's not that long since this was common in even 'western' societies.
To be fair DJP, you insist on alleging homosexuality is a perversion on par with incest, rape and child molestation. Shall we revisit some comparisons about Christianity, Scientology, Mormonism or The Branch Davidians?
According to the history and origins of marriage it is religion and it's adherents who have redefined it. It's not that long since blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. Who redefined that?
Can you elucidate on your claim that homosexuals can marry?
You call me King Rupert yet you expound on the word of God and your interpretation of scripture.
Dunno about you but I need a coffee, hazelnut cream I think.
Rachael:
Additionally, the founders...all of them, believed that the Bible should be taught (even the unbelieving ones). Even the Supreme Court recognized that at one point in our history. It was inconceivable that our system of justice would be be divorced from Bibical moral values. Some founders believed a moral people was not possible without the Bible and it's moral precepts.
They were right. So what happens is that everyone will be told to do as they want which will result in rampant immorality and lawlessness, which will result in more laws (to legislate behavior) ending in tyranny. You should read Francis Schaeffer's, How Should We Then Live.
Rupert:
Everyone has the same rights to get married. That is to somebody of the opposite gender. Secondly, there are many people who want to marry their siblings and cousins. And if homosexuals can marry without consideration of their biological impact (which was one of the reasons given in the judicial decision) then brother and sister can marry (especially with birth control, abortion on demand, etc.). There are already lawsuits to legalize polygamy and incest. Frankly, given your belief, I can't think of a good reason why you would allow those either.
As to consent, who decides what the age of consent is? And on what basis? I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is no consensus, scientific or otherwise, as to what age a person can give sexual consent.
Once you rip marriage from its moorings, everything is in play.
Rupert is an atheist who I would think by default is also an evolutionist.
Seeing that the necessity of evolution demands that a species be able to propagate to the next generation, wouldn't homosexual behavior be a determent to the whole of the human species? What advantage does same sex relationships bring to the propagation of humanity?
Sir Aaron, it certainly was not inconceivable that justice be divorced from Biblical moral values. Some believed that there are no morals without the Bible, some still do. I think the evidence shows otherwise. And the only reason all of them may have believed that the Bible should be taught was that it was the most easily and widely available text with which to teach literacy.
people aren't all told to do what they want so your claim regarding rampant immorality and lawlessness is spurious to say the least. Are you saying that if you stopped believing in God you would become a complete monster? What might that say about you?
There is no legitimate reason to stop homosexuals from marrying. Despite contraception etc. pregnancies can still occur and this is why some states have laws against incest. Not all.
Remember the miscegenation laws once existed too.
Society as a whole has agreed to a varying range of ages of consent but it is generally late teens. This has not been based on scripture, but on community consensus.
Marriage stopped being moored at its original pier centuries ago.
why is it so hard to understand that your first amendment rights end where they abridge anothers equal protection. and that congress will write no laws supporting the beliefs of any particular religion. would you prefer a theocracy? who would determine the laws............the episcopalians, catholics, amish, baptists, lutheran synod or elca.
Already responded to several times; please read the thread. All sorts of perverts have full civil rights. Homosexuals have full civil rights.
Rupert - what do you have against my cousins, anyway?
I don't understand how people are so short-sighted in their arguments. If marriage is not defined as one woman and one man, then all of the situations DJP brought up are valid. How can you say that your beliefs are better than that of the pedophile? Or the polygamist? Or those who believe incest is OK? Who are we to judge their acts as perverted? Unless there is a standard that is external and objective, then how to we judge what is right and what is wrong?
And if you're going to tell me "we just know", then you have to deal with people who think they are in love with children (there is a man-boy love group), or that they love many people (polygamists). We can't just try to narrow things to suit what we like. And let me tell you, it isn't that Christians have this overwhelming desire in and of ourselves to pursue what is right...that is the work of God.
Which brings me back to the irony of the judge's statement about religious beliefs harming people. I guess the only thing I would change is that it is the truth that hurts us and that our pride needs to be stung. I am thankful that God changed my heart and that he still lovingly disciplines me today so that I feel the sting of conviction when confronted with my sin.
the polygamy arguement is ridiculous
So, where you live, is that considered an argument?
Then here you go: no, it isn't!
Whee, this is fun, and 'way easier than having to reason!
feetxxxl,
Although I agree with Dan's analysis of your comment, here is an explanation for you...
If we change the definition of marriage because we are saying that it goes against one group's beliefes, then who are we to say that another group's (polygamists) beliefs are not valid, also? If we can not hold that the Bible is the authoritative source of truth, then what do we use? And who are you to say that your beliefs about polygamy should be the standard? Obviously the majority doesn't matter on this issue, at least according to the judge presiding over this case.
No, if you are saying that people should be allowed to marry whoever they want to based upon their own beliefs, then you have to open it up for any and all belief systems. I mean, that is what postmodern philosphy is all about, right?
Rupert,
It was inconceivable to the American founding fathers...ALL OF THEM, that our laws would be ripped from the moorings of the Bible. Even those who were not necessarily Christian believed that the Bible was crucial to a just society.
And whenever laws are made on something other than a Biblical basis,there will always be less freedom and eventually tyranny.
Rupert:
You want to know how the founders felt:
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
And that, my friend, is a merely a drop in the ocean. As I said, it was inconceivable to them, even to the deists and unbelievers.
Um, wouldn't the 19th amendment to the constitution be an example of "because this is allowed, then this?"
Should homosexuals be placed in a higher-class status than people in general, regardless of gender or color? If a person is brutally murdered, it's murder. But if a homosexual is murdered, it's something MORE vile and repulsive? If a person slanders someone because they have dimples, that's bad, but if the above-dimpled person is also a homosexual, it's hate-speech?
The homosexual agenda as it were, seems to be to classify themselves as something beyond the rest of us humans.
@ Sir Aaron: could you please cite your source? That's a great quote.
Rupert: "Would you marry your cousin? I certainly wouldn't (mine, not yours, lets not get misinterpreted again). Yet it's not that long since this was common in even 'western' societies."
Actually the reference to cousins is misguided, for in fact many U.S. states still do allow the marriage of cousins (heterosexual of course). Some prohibit double-first-cousins from marrying for obvious genetic reasons, but generally cousins can marry and it's never been that big of an issue, and cousins are not among the prohibited sexual relationships (Leviticus 20) mentioned in the Bible.
The great issue in this case, as I see, is that we now no longer have law by a republic (representative government) but law by dictatorship -- the judgocracy, whereby the will of the people is overruled by the vested and exalted view of a few (one in this case; at most 9 individuals). No doubt the founding fathers (who did agree with Christian morality) would be shocked to realize their carefully constructed government has come to this. Such can only lead to anarchy and tyranny, and makes our official system (voting by the people) worthless. We may think how great we have it, that we have "free elections" unlike some countries where the people vote with a gun pointed at the head -- but when the actual law is set by appointed judges, in the end what would be the point of voting?
Check out wallbuilders. They have a lot of resources and available quotes. BTW, my last post was composed of different quotes, each being delineated by paragraph. I was too lazy to do the proper citing.
too lazy to do the proper citing.
Dude! Think of where you are!
Bring up your game!
DJP:
(I was gonna call him a slacker, but didn't want to get struck by lightning.)
feetxxl:
@feetxxl:
1.) Yes, if it weren't for the Bible, I'd have zero compunction against murdering another person, except for the fear of being punished. I've given my testimony here before, but long ago I came to the realization that if there is no God, then I can and should do whatever it takes to please myself. And if I need to murder somebody to accomplish that, then I would. Fortunately for you and others, I was saved by God's grace and now submit to his morale commands and precepts.
2.) You've cited a problem where none exists. In truth, the founding fathers, especially during the Constitutional delegates, came from a vast difference of denominations and beliefs. And yet, they were able to come to an agreement on basic morale precepts from the Bible. In truth, Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists all essentially agree on most moral laws that should be enforced by government. They also agree to its basic source (God).
3.) Please quote where LEviticus says slavery is good. Second, please tell me how slavery in the Bible is anything like what your modern concepts of such are. I'll save you from that last one, because they it isn't.
DJP:
I was thinking I'm at work and using my Iphone! If I were at home on my PC, I'd do it.
Rupert asks, "Can you elucidate on your claim that homosexuals can marry?"
If I may...
An eligible homosexual male has the same right to marry an eligible female as an eligible heterosexual male does.
If you stop reading "homosexual marriage" into the statement, you will see what is meant.
I hope that helps.
Just adding to my last post to Feetxxl. I can tell you before I was saved, I did do pretty much anything to please myself. I committed all kinds of depraved acts. Gradually I realized that there was some lines I would not cross because of some standard (although gradually eroding) of morality that I held. It was then that I realized that either there was a morale code by God that I needed to follow or there was no code and therefore, there need not be any lines.
Also, I want to add that I did not experience true joy, true peace, true happiness, or true love until after salvation. All the acts of selfish depravity could not secure what submission to God could. And now sweet liberty.
Merrilee:
I am a slacker by nature. No need to fear lightning, I readily admit what you see.
I promise to do better next time! (or wait until I'm not using my Iphone).
all humans can do is distance themselves from their own very goodness by believing lies that come against it.
Man, that would be funny if it weren't so sad.
So, person with very large feet, why do you accept Genesis 1:31 as true -- that God created everything very good -- and yet not accept Genesis 3 where we learn that Adam and Eve sinned against God and were expelled from fellowship with Him? Were they simply distancing themselves from their own goodness, or were they rebelling against a clear command given to them by their God?
Belief in the goodness of the original creation does not in any way negate the truth that humanity sinned in rebellion against God, died spiritually, are now consequently totally depraved, and will incur His wrath without a sin-bearing substitute. God did good, we did bad. And now we're dead unless God does some more good. No contradiction whatsoever.
I invite you to believe upon that sin-baring substitute, who lived a life as it was meant to be lived -- a "very good" life as God designed it to be in the Garden. And He declared that on the cross the sacrifice of His righteous life paid the penalty for all those who would admit their own depravity and sinfulness, and look to Him alone for their righteousness before a Holy God. And He was resurrected 3 days later to prove the sufficiency and acceptability of His sacrifice to the Father. Would you look to Him?
feet:
I appreciate that you've cut and paste from some atheistic propaganda website.
Unfortunately, your source isn't all that clever. The Bible speaks of slaves and slavery many times. And yet, I'm still waiting for the passage in Leviticus where it says slavery is "good."
The argument about "acceptable today" isn't relevant as there are many things that are accepted or not accepted today that are contrary to God's moral precepts that we find in Scripture.
Struth, talk about While I was Sleeping...!
Come on DJP, I said I wouldn't marry my cousin, I didn't say I wouldn't marry yours ;-) I'm sure they are all perfectly lovely! But I am spoken for and would not entertain getting married anyway.
Thanks Daniel, I think someone else also pointed that out earlier. Homosexuals are allowed to marry heterosexuals. How droll.
Lynda O., I think we are saying pretty much the same thing about there not really being a great deal of serious legislation against 'incest'.
Sir Aaron! I am shocked at your talk of becoming a monster without your faith. That's a shocker! It would be interesting to be able to compare crime rates between true atheists and theists. Morals, ethics etc. did actually exist before organized religion and the adoption of the Bible though.
During the furore over the national day of prayer I read a lot from both sides of the debate as well as the black and white evidence between them. I disagree with the weight some give to faith in the formation and intent of the relevant documents and decrees.
Anyway, moving on. I am a bit disappointed in myself. Have I been naive, gullible or just plain silly? I have allowed myself to be distracted by semantic argument on irrelevancies.
Homosexuality is not a perversion, sexual or otherwise. Certainly no more than inter-racial relationships. ('In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the story of Phinehas and the "Curse of Ham") It does not fall into the same category as child molestation or rape, on any level.
Someone mentioned the potential danger of the lack of procreation. Given that homosexuals account for 10% of the populace at the most, I think there are other factors having a greater impact on this factor. Two income households, the alternatives of time consumption in the modern age. Maybe even electricity and television.
I apologize, everyone.
Just remembered: I am the blog administrator, so why am I allowing a meta to get waylaid by comments I don't even want to have to read, myself?
Feetxxx-guy: if you want to interact on an adult, English-language blog:
1. Learn to punctuate, including caps, paragraphs, intelligible sentences... the whole 9 yards.
2. Read the post, and the comments, before commenting.
Bring up your game, try it again.
Sorry, everyone.
Rupert, much as I like you, I am going to have to figure out a way to keep you on-topic, and enforce some sort of rule to keep the conversation from getting bogged down with the same already-answered question being posed over and over without a lick of progress.
So, in review:
1. The oldest religion recognized only one man + one woman as defining marriage.
2. You don't get to shrug off a devastating response because you don't like it. Homosexuals have the right to marry. They do not have the right to force a culture to normalize perversion, or make words/institutions mean what suits them just because it eases their feeling of guilt and shame slightly.
3. Yes, as a matter of fact, it is perversion. You don't have the right to a view on it, since you do not have a transcendent norm against which to weigh anything. The transcendent norm in this case is God, who stigmatizes all homosexual activity as definitionally immoral.
4. Of course you say "YUK," because that's all you have. Thus spake the atheist/god-wannabe, by necessity. Today you don't like it, tomorrow - who knows? Not only is that worthless for clearing or condemning your actions, it is (if possible) less so for making any comment on anyone else's.
If there is no God — I speak as a fool — then all there is is preference and power. This is what we see in Judge Walker's decision: he has a preference, and power.
God save us from such arbitrary tyranny.
Post a Comment