August 9th, 2010
'When the foundations [of marriage] are being destroyed, what can the righteous do'? (PS 11:5)
Prayerfully fight, with our minds, hearts and spirits fully engaged for the battle ahead. Will Proposition 8 become the Roe vs. Wade of marriage? Or the Magna Carte that allows US citizens to define marriage according to conscience?
As most of you know, on Wed. August 4th, in the Federal District Court of San Francisco, Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop. 8 on the basis that denying gays the right to marry denied them equality under the US Constitution.
What disturbs you more: Walker, a homosexual judge, who kicked off the case's closing arguments two months ago with a twinkle in his eye and a lilt in his voice as he demurred: 'Well, June is the month of weddings', to the delight of the 'married' lesbian plaintiffs who fawned and giggled over their judicial advocate?
Or the tragic truth that Walker is the mouthpiece for America in the 21st century, a nation no longer certain that marriage was designed to create, protect, and raise children in order that they might emulate their parents' example?
Not only was Walker's decision an abuse of power (one biased man defied the majority of CA voters who through Prop. 8 waged and won the biggest political battle ever for a proposition in CA's history), it reveals the fault lines on which we stand as a nation concerning our views of marriage, equality, and personal rights.
Consider this: Walker struck down Prop. 8 on the grounds that CA citizens who were unwilling to redefine marriage to include gays were motivated by prejudice, an irrational anti-gay bias that compelled them 'to believe that same-sex couples are not as good as opposite-sex couples.'
He missed our point entirely. Prop.8 was simply the will of CA citizens to affirm the rationality of marriage. We also affirmed that marriage is not a 'right' given to any two people who want to privately contract a life together but rather, in the words of Robert George, 'an institution that serves the interest of children and society as a whole by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.'
That definition, which has always been the fundamental meaning of marriage across religious and cultural lines, always will be the meaning of marriage.
We must prayerfully fight for that definition to be upheld by the law of our land. We thought we had fought and won in CA. Judge Walker just picked a fight.
To ensure that the Walkers of this world do not prevail, please pray:
For the hold placed on Walker's decision that does not permit gays to marry in CA until further consideration from the Court. Pray that this 'stay' endures until the case is heard by a higher court.
For the Prop. 8 defense team as they seek consideration from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pray for a smooth pathway in this process.
For the case to move swiftly to the Federal Supreme Court, where the fate of marriage will ultimately be decided by one-Justice Kennedy-who appears to be the swing vote in a Court divided right down the middle.
Pray for Kennedy, that he and the Court will hold fast to the true definition of marriage, or at least the people's right to define it according to their conscience.
Will Walker's decision be the earthquake that devastates marriage in the USA? Or the decision that provokes its true declaration: Roe vs. Wade, or Magna Carte?
Let us prayerfully fight together, that CA's Prop. 8 will become a national victory-upholding the true meaning of marriage as well as democracy.
Please join us in our 40-day prayer/fast for marriage, Oct. 16th-Nov. 24th. We know what to do when the foundations are being destroyed.
© 2010 by Desert Stream Ministries
Based on the biblical foundation of compassion, integrity, and dependence on God, Desert Stream Ministries proclaims to the world the transforming power of Jesus Christ. We equip the body of Christ to minister healing to the sexually and relationally broken through healing groups and leadership training for the local church.We invite you to visit our website at: Desert Stream.org
*******
There is a good reason to have hope that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of traditional marriage! Read what law professor and Legal Insurrection blogger, William A. Jacobsen writes:
Ted Olson May Be Too Smart By Half
Ted Olson obviously is a very good lawyer. In the past, that very good lawyer -- and his allegiance to conservative values -- has been viewed by liberals as the devil incarnate because of his role in winning Bush v. Gore.
Now that very good lawyer, along with David Boies, has pulled off a major coup in obtaining a ruling from a Judge who did not need much convincing, that there is a federal constitutional right to gay marriage, thereby invalidating California Prop. 8.
The video of Olson being interviewed by Chris Wallace (embedded below) has brought cheers for Olson because of lines such as "Well, would you like your right to free speech -- would you like Fox's right to free press put up to a vote ...."
There is a logical flaw, however, in Olson's primary legal argument that the Judge merely followed Supreme Court precedent on the issue of marriage (emphasis mine):As a matter of fact, since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We're not talking about a new right here.
We're talking about whether a fundamental right, something that the Supreme Court has characterized as the most fundamental relationship we have in this country, can be deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation.
The problem with this argument is that the marriages the Supreme Court has addressed in the past were marriages between one man and one woman, which the Court -- in Olson's characterization -- has deemed "the most fundamental relationship we have in this country...."
On that, the supporters of Prop. 8 could agree. The traditional marriage has been recognized as being of fundamental importance to society, unlike other relationships, such as polygamy, which also have a historical and religious basis, but as to which society has made a value judgment.
By focusing on the fundamental right to marry, but ignoring that that right arose on the basis of the Supreme Court recognizing the fundamental role in society of traditional marriage, I think the legal team opposing Prop. 8 has set itself up for failure.
Olson's argument is something of a circular firing squad. In order to prove that society has no constitutionally rational basis for making a value judgment in favor of traditional marriage, Olson needs to prove that traditional marriage is not the most fundamental relationship in society. But, according to Olson, on 14 occasions the Supreme Court has said otherwise.
Hat Tips:
Desert Stream.org
Legal Insurrection
Posts
5 comments:
I don't see how this addresses any of my questions...
Dan,
Are you being sarcastic here? The second part of that post - from the law professor - certainly DID answer your questions. It showed that the decision made by the homosexual judge WAS FLAWED and will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court!
Here is the relevant section:
There is a logical flaw, however, in Olson's primary legal argument that the Judge merely followed Supreme Court precedent on the issue of marriage (emphasis mine):
As a matter of fact, since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We're not talking about a new right here.
We're talking about whether a fundamental right, something that the Supreme Court has characterized as the most fundamental relationship we have in this country, can be deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation.
The problem with this argument is that the marriages the Supreme Court has addressed in the past were marriages between one man and one woman, which the Court -- in Olson's characterization -- has deemed "the most fundamental relationship we have in this country...."
On that, the supporters of Prop. 8 could agree. The traditional marriage has been recognized as being of fundamental importance to society, unlike other relationships, such as polygamy, which also have a historical and religious basis, but as to which society has made a value judgment.
By focusing on the fundamental right to marry, but ignoring that that right arose on the basis of the Supreme Court recognizing the fundamental role in society of traditional marriage, I think the legal team opposing Prop. 8 has set itself up for failure.
Olson's argument is something of a circular firing squad. In order to prove that society has no constitutionally rational basis for making a value judgment in favor of traditional marriage, Olson needs to prove that traditional marriage is not the most fundamental relationship in society. But, according to Olson, on 14 occasions the Supreme Court has said otherwise.
The second part of that post - from the law professor - certainly DID answer your questions. It showed that the decision made by the homosexual judge WAS FLAWED and will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court!
But you DO understand, don't you, that this was not my question. My question was not: Do you think it ought to be overturned?
My question was: You DO understand that this is how our system works? That if a judge presides over a case and decides that a law that was passed is actually unconstitutional, that this judge has a duty to overturn that law?
That is a different question than: SHOULD this law be overturned, right?
Dan,
What is ALSO means is that the judge's OPINION was unconstitutional in and of itself!
Are judges "perfect" in your mind? Do you not see that what he did was an unconstitutional act in and of itself?
Perhaps this person's comment (from the Legal Insurrection blog post) will state it better than I can:
DINORightMarie said...
Kyle - you point yourself right back at Prof. Jacobson's argument: these court decisions you refer to were evaluating the one man/one woman relationship. Read this again:
"In order to prove that society has no constitutionally rational basis for making a value judgment in favor of traditional marriage, Olson needs to prove that traditional marriage is not the most fundamental relationship in society."
--Prof. Jacobson
Based on your logic, polygamy and marriage between people and animals is/may be acceptable, because "our cultures (sic) understanding of marriage has changed over time." Prof. Jacobson's point is that Olson's assertion has not been proven, and thus Olson's side has set themselves up to fail at the appellate level. The pro-Prop. 8 team did not force this issue, but it should be caught at a higher level, if we are still a nation of laws (no sarcasm intended).
The judge's ruling in this case was loaded with self-justifying explanations as to why he depended on biased witness testimony rather than legal precedent. The SCOTUS has ruled in many instances against polygamy and other "value judgment" definitions of marriage. This is ONE judge making the decision for CA and setting precedent for all 50 states who now have to address this issue and tremble at a single judge's power to dictate to us ALL what is acceptable in society. This is the ultimate form of judicial tyranny.
The 9th circuit will not likely do anything; however, the SCOTUS will evaluate this fundamental flaw, IMHO, and overturn this activist judge's ruling.
August 9, 2010 4:03 PM
Are judges "perfect" in your mind?
No, not at all. I think I've been abundantly clear that I believe we're all fallible human beings, judges included.
But then I wasn't asking if he was perfect, I was asking if you understand that this is how our system works? That if a judge finds a law to be unconstitutional, that he has an obligation to overturn it, right?
Do you not see that what he did was an unconstitutional act in and of itself?
I'm sorry, but I'm no legal scholar. Legal language and its complexities are a bit over my head and I'll have to own up to not being in a position to make an authoritative statement on the topic.
Are you a legal scholar?
Having said that, based on my NON-expert reading of the Constitution, I don't see how it can be constitutional to provide benefits to one group of consenting and rational adults and not to another. But I'm content with leaving it in the legal process established in our nation, flawed though it is.
This first judge found in Unconstitutional. It will be appealed to a higher court and they will make a further decision on the law and this judge's ruling and that will either be appealed or not until it reaches the Supreme Court, which will make a final decision (which may be the next step, actually, as I understand it).
My question was only to ask if you understand that this IS our process? That IF the judge thought it was unconstitutional, then OUR PROCESS requires for him to overrule it and then it can be appealed or not.
Agree or disagree, that IS our process and there's nothing especially wrong about the process, even if it's possible for a bad decision to result, right? I mean, this is a flawed system of gov't thought up by flawed human beings. I happen to think America's system is a GREAT one, but it is flawed and imperfect, nonetheless.
Post a Comment