Tuesday, August 17, 2010

"That Time Has Passed" ~ The Courtroom Of Moral Philosophy

"The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in  order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed." ~ Federal Judge Vaughn Walker Case No C 09-2292 VRW 8/10/2010 ruling against California Prop 8 Pg. 113
While viewing the recent events and being overwhelmed by personal, business, church and other social circumstances which have decidedly taken almost all of my time, I decided not to comment on many of the most recent happenings and events regarding Prop. 8 or the Presidential confusion over a Mosque/Ground Zero and religious freedom. However, as I began to read the Federal Judge's opinion and ruling regarding marriage and gay marriage in particular, I couldn't help but be overwhelmed with the sense that I needed to say something regarding at least this issue and call our readers to note that this judge was not merely trying to come to a legal decision regarding Prop 8 (California's ban on gay marriage) but also trying to send a message to the heterosexual community as well as the Christian community that has traditionally held, by far and large, that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. 

In a 138 page ruling the Judge not only reviews the case but outlines a doctrine of law affirming that marriage is a "fundamental right" consistent with equal protections under the 14th Amendment of the US. The judge further  acknowledges that traditional marriage within the US has been between a man and a woman. He then declares that that same "fundamental right" (to marry) should be extended to same sex couples simply because he declares that homosexuals have experienced both sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination
and ultimately simply because he thinks it's time to redefine marriage. In fact the judge declares that homosexual couples already have "marriages" not based on gender. He draws a contrast between former racial restrictions against marriage and states that arguments for marriage based on procreation are obsolete. 

So What Does "Gender" Mean?

From this judges philosophical reasoning, gender no longer plays a role in relationships in the US. It is really hard to even determine what "gender" really means under his construct as it certainly has no, or at least, very little value. What I find striking is that this judge additionally creates a new doctrine of marriage. He states that US marriage is not based on gender at all, but should be based on what he calls equality. Here are the judge's words:
"Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals." ~ Federal Judge Vaughn Walker Case No C 09-2292 VRW 8/10/2010 ruling against California Prop 8 Pg. 113
This is the theme song of the HRC, Lambda Legal and other goups that seek homosexual advancement. Now, understanding what that means can be a complex issue. This "equality" could either be real or perceived, the judge does not specify which, neither does he set forth a standard whereby "equal" can be measured. In other words a "union of equals" to this judge seems to suggest that anyone can be married as long as they consider themselves "equal" under the law...

Well, Judge Vaughn, I suppose we can throw out all restrictions on marriage that have to do with any significant differences. Under his construct, incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, bigamous marriages and other types of unions can be ordained of the state and come under the "fundamental right" of marriage. Not to mention that under-aged marriages are certainly allowed and endorsed under his doctrine. 

What the Judge has effectively done is open the flood gate to all sorts of deviant marital arrangements where people could and will claim that they are "equal" under the law to marry and can be united in spite of tradition, former restrictions and a whole host of criteria. Opening marriage up for homosexuals is one thing that the judge seeks to do, but in doing that (if his ruling stands) is not the only thing that his ruling does. This effectively creates and endorses an new morality whereby the standards are simply based on what those in power "feel" is the right thing to do.  

Judge Vaughn's Real Target
"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. See FF 48, 76-80" ~ Federal Judge Vaughn Walker Case No C 09-2292 VRW 8/10/2010 ruling against California Prop 8 Pg. 130
You mean to tell me that one cannot observe homosexual couples and notice a difference between them and heterosexual couples? You mean that there is no notable or observable difference between same sex and opposite sex couples? What is the judge trying to say here?

It is obvious that the judge's real target is the traditional understanding or portrayal of marriage and the role of men and women as defined religiously and most specifically under Christianity outlined through and by Christian moral values and by tradition within the US. The target is clear, a distilling of homosexuality to make it fit in society as being "normal" or as President Obama stated:
"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognized relationships between two men or two women, are just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman." ~ President Barack Obama 10/10/2009 HRC Dinner 
These two positions are eerily similar. In fact they are the same in both scope and intent. These are the individuals setting and interpreting our laws and representing us as people...God help us!

Here is what the judge states prior to that:
"Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.".."The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender. See FF 32, 57." ~ Federal Judge Vaughn Walker Case No C 09-2292 VRW 8/10/2010 ruling against California Prop 8 Pg. 124
The only problem here is that men and women aren't the subject of Prop 8 in a restrictive sense. Prop. 8 exalts men and women, both genders to the status of equal in their ability to share and promote and partake of the institution of marriage. In other words the Judge's words here are a smokescreen designed to declare that Prop 8 is somehow restrictive or defining of heterosexual relationships thus making an emotional appeal to the benefits of homosexual marriages. This, in my opinion, is manipulation plain and simple. 

The Standard Of "Better Than" 

In displaying the standard that clearly define this judges philosophical basis of his decisions and judgement he begins to outline the standard that can only be described as the "better than" standard. This is what he says:
The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than  their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally. ~ Federal Judge Vaughn Walker Case No C 09-2292 VRW 8/10/2010 ruling against California Prop 8 Pg. 132
The judge states that heterosexual couples are "not better than" homosexual couples. What is the meaning of this? What is the basis of "better" and how is that defined? Who holds the standard of being "better than"? Where does this "better than" standard come from? Is it intrinsic or is it bestowed upon the individual or individuals through some outside source? Thus it is clearly revealed that this is not a legal judgment, this is a philosophical opinion and a philosophical statement.

What the judge does is set forth value statements claiming that those that promoted Prop 8 were claiming a higher value judgement than those who didn't. Could it be the fact that supporters of Pro 8 (over half the state of California) were simply engaged in protecting their families and communities.

In a declaration that was filled with legal codes, statutes and cases, a moral philosophy clearly comes through the judges wording and judgement. Although the case will certainly arrive at the US Supreme Court for a final decision the point of this article is to look at the legal philosophy that has been developed around the issue of gay marriage and simply being gay in America.

What's next? I guarantee that any and everything goes as the judge has declared that we "evolve". We have evolved for sure, in the since that our leaders have changed over time. The problem is that this evolution, if successful will continue to destroy, devalue and reset the standard of right bringing it down to the standard of men.

Luke 22:31-32 ~" 31- And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat: 32 - But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."


Blessed!

References:

See the Judge's complete ruling at Scribd  
Is Judge Walker gay himself? Kashmir Hill thinks so.

Update 8/18/2010: The Snowball Effect
Former CNN advocacy anchor Lou Dobbs is the latest to enter into the endorsement of gay marriage based on the 14 Amendment of the Constitution. On Good Morning America Dobbs claimed that he understood the opposition against gay marriage based on religious sentiments, but felt that issue trumped by the legal concerns and the need to fulfill the rights of individual citizens.  

5 comments:

  1. This is so serious. Can we now overturn any law that has been voted by a majorty of mainly believers and then sight religeous bias? What he is in effect doing is trying to minimize or weaken the vote of the believer.

    The point is that if a law is passed by the will of the people it should stand regardless of belief.

    Judge Walker is twisted, as you have stated he is not making a judicial stance, he is making a philisophical one.

    The separation of Church and state is not supposed to punish the believer and deny them their constitutional rights, it is actually there to make sure that we all have religious freedom and can vote our morals and be heard according to the processes put in place.

    He is simply an abuser of power and has a sickening agenda (along with our president) that will put the final nail in America's coffin.

    If the writers of the constitution deemed that men and women should marry the same sex then it would have been written, I am sure.

    This reminds of people who try to distort the scripture to defend their slackness, as if the Prophets and The Apostles didnt understand what homosexual love was and as if the scripture somehow is outdated, sexist etc.

    Sick and Sad!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pastor I wish you were on the defense team. You have sliced this with brilliant accuracy.

    Its chilling and at the same time exciting. A fight is nearing and we need to sharpen our swords.

    Its at times like this I have to fortify myself, my spirit and my faith with truth.

    Psalms 37:1 Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.

    2For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.

    I readying myself to "run with the horses" because I surely hear the hoofbeats approaching.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's like this:

    If a law damages society should it be implemented?

    Now, their argument is that, "look, segregation was the law and look how the conservative crowd fought that."

    These also claim that issues like segregation was embraced by the majority in some southern states, but was damaging for society at large...

    Now, that argumentation appears to sound just and right...except for the fact that race is something that a person doesn't chose. Sexual orientation is something that a person chooses or practices whereas being black or white isn't optional.

    Now, the homosexual crowd states that they were born that way but there remains no empirical evidence to support or sustain that notion.

    The next thing is this, IF facts were found that supported homosexuality from the womb, then would the homosexual have a supportable argument from a legal standpoint? Maybe so...BUT, that in no way justifies making laws in support of homosexuality...why???

    Sociopaths are said to be born that way also. Now, I AM NOT saying that a homosexual is a sociopath or other deviant, that's NOT the case...I only point that out to make it clear that society acknowledges MANY types of behaviors that are seemingly not in the norm and DOES NOT make laws for them or bring them under the scope of the Constitution or equal protection.

    We ofter draw the parallel of pedophilia or polygamy. These are practices that "society" has regulated laws against. Under this judge's application of law and fact, a solid case can be made and i venture to say WILL be made to justify those type of arrangements and relationships also...In fact, why is a homosexual considered to be "equal" under the law, while a man with 5 wives is discriminated against because of their "equally grown" sexual choice?

    Insert any sexual activity and proclivity and apply it to the Judges line of reasoning and you have open season on any type of sexual behavior even if it is deviant or against the law.

    The fact that needs to be pointed out is that race is not a choice, whereas any sexual practice is.

    This is the difference and the judge and other critics give ABSOLUTELY no consideration to that fact. One cannot argue homosexual rights on the same basis of race. This is hijacking the civil rights issue in general and cannot be applied in the same manner or under the same standard.

    I am NOT a lawyer, but I await one to explain how a choice is somehow equal to a natural circumstance under the law.

    In all things, as Gcmwatch points out, there is a serious battle on the horizon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pastor Harvey, I really believe that this is the devils final frontier. I truly believe we will see the anti christ soon after homosexual marriage is made legal in America.

    One thing we know for sure is that if the US does something most of the world will soon follow.

    Yes, this will open up a great can of worms as as you have stated that all other types sexual practices and beleifs will HAVE TO be considered. Even zoophile's believe that nothing is wrong with what they do and this will no doubt be the open door they walk through to petition the Governement.

    I would also like to state that being of a certian race is not sin.
    How they equate the two (very forcefully most times) is beyond me and is a slap in the face of all of those who suffered for equality.

    ReplyDelete
  5. SB said: "Sexual orientation is something that a person chooses or practices whereas being black or white isn't optional.

    Now, the homosexual crowd states that they were born that way but there remains no empirical evidence to support or sustain that notion...." This is the piece that is always missing, whenever this issue is debated in the public square.

    The homosexual lobby has convinced the maintstream they are born gay. Unless we bring the argument back to this genesis, it will be a losing battle.

    Jim, Vancouver

    ps. Paul, I completely agree with you: "this is the devil's final frontier".

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.