A Major Setback: The Overturning of Proposition 8

In a distressing and surprising move this past Wednesday, Judge Vaughn Walker of California overturned proposition 8. This move was a major setback to the institute of marriage in the state and for our country. What makes this ruling so striking is the fact that a majority of Californians supported proposition 8. This decision is yet another glaring example of judicial activism, where the personal views of a judge trump the collective will of the people. In many ways this type of activism is a key strategy of the left of subverting the will of the people in order to pass their radical, anti constitutional measures. This ruling has far ranging implications because it is setting a precedent of unchecked judicial activism, a common and unfortunately successful tactic of the left. This type of activism goes against the judicial powers of the constitution, in which the main role of this body is to interpret the constitution not impose a personal opinion or point of view. Here are some of the highlights of this ruling:  (For greater context and analysis read these two articles.)

• In section 77 it states “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."
• In section 55 it states, "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."
• In section 58 it states, "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."
• In section 67 it states, "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates unequal treatment Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.
• In section 70 it states, "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology."
•  In section 72 it states, "The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes."
•  Section 80 it states, "The campaign to pass proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same sex relationships are inferior to opposite sex relationships."

To read the rest of the ruling click here.

What makes this ruling so chilling is the fact that religion is singled out in this document. This misrepresentation is reckless and duplicitous because in it Walker assumes that his rulings are based on leading scientific truth.  This is most evident section 70 where Walker makes the assumption that the field of developmental psychology has accepted beyond reasonable doubt that children are not affected adversely by same sex parents.  What this statement does not take into consideration is the fact that most of these studies are still relatively new and do not take into consideration the effects on the children when same sex parents decide to divorce or split up.

Another obvious weakness in Walker's argument is in section 72 where he states that the genetic relationship of the parent to the child does not affect a child's adjustment.  This type of thinking is treacherous because it lays down the subtle groundwork of taking the authority away of parents over their children.  Ultimately what this does it gives the state unfettered authority to determine what is best for the child.  Once this happens the child become a product of the state, stripping away their inherent dignity and ability to make their own decisions.  

The most chilling reality of this all is the fact that the groundwork is being now laid to prosecute religions that do not advocate or support in gay rights. One does not have to think too far to realize the implications of such a ruling. Look at what happened to Catholic Charities in Massachusetts.  They were forced to close down their doors because they refused to place children in the hands of same sex couples. Just imagine one day you are in church and a priest says something that is deemed as against gay rights. Not only can he be prosecuted for, "hate speech" he can also be thrown into jail. If you think that I am exaggerating the truth these types of actions have already taken place in countries such as Canada and Sweden. Ultimately this ruling sets the groundwork for the whole scale discrimination of religion in America.  Let me illustrate to you a clear example of how this type of discrimination can occur. Read this article first.

In this article a professor and a student were both singled out for holding anti gay views. The professional and academic consequences for both of them were staggering. I fear that these types of actions will become more the norm then the exception. As long as the secular progressives have the courts on their sides, usurping the will of the people, they will use this false authority with reckless impunity to punish severely those who disagree with them.

What I find most interesting in all of this is the fact that most homosexual couples do not necessarily support monogamous relationships as is indicated in this study.   In this study it showed that most San Francisco gay couples had no problems with polygamous relationships even at the expense of monogamous ones. The question remains,why do gay rights activists then fight so stridently for monogamous, marriage rights when a greater percentage of them prefer non monogamous relationships? This obvious contradiction is never mentioned in the media or in this ruling. (Don't expect that) I know that this study focuses exclusively on gay couples from San Francisco, but I believe that these findings could be applied to different gay populations in our country and even in some populations in Europe.

I remember two years ago I attended a FOCUS conference near Dallas, Texas. (For more information about this group click here.) One of the key note speakers was Fr. Benedict Groeschel. Groeschel warned us that our country needed a religious and a spiritual renewal. He also argued that if this did not occur then the consequences would be severe, even resulting in the renewed persecution of the Church in America. I remember carelessly shrugging off his warnings, but now in light of this recent ruling I fear that his macabre prediction is accurate and utterly frightful. St. Paul speaks about what can happen to a culture that shuns God’s decrees in favor of immorality as he states,

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth…Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves…for this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1: 18, 24, 26-27)

I am afraid that we are living in such times. We are at a critical crossroads where only two decisions stand; we can either choose to confront and fight against these forces of immorality, or we can choose to sit passively and idly while our entire country and world seeks to upend any vestige of Christianity. It is my hope and prayer that we all choose the former.