'Gay' Judge Who Overturned Prop 8 Quitting

Good news here in California regarding the ongoing battle to keep marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman! 'Gay' judge who overturned Prop 8 quitting
Vaughn Walker's decision reversed votes of more than 7 million

Excerpt:

The homosexual federal judge in California who said that gender "no longer forms an essential part of marriage" when he ruled that voters in the state were constitutionally prohibited from defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is quitting.

The announcement regarding U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker comes from Rich Wieking, clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The announcement, released late yesterday, said Walker will step down as chief judge Dec. 31 and leave the court entirely in February 2011.

The change could create huge new possibilities should the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Prop 8 case now is pending, return any or all of the case to the lower court for further action, which is not unusual for the much-overturned appellate district.

Matthew McReynolds, counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute, one of the many pro-family organizations that have worked on the Prop 8 case, said it's about time.

"The retirement of Judge Walker is significant because of the possibility the Prop 8 case will be sent back to the district court at some point," he said. "Judge Walker's exit from the federal bench can't come soon enough for the people of California, who are still reeling from his pronouncement that the majority of voters are irrational."

Walker, whose homosexual lifestyle has been documented locally, wrote in his opinion that overturned the votes of millions of California residents to amend the state constitution to include the traditional definition of marriage, that:


* "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."


* "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."


* "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment."


* "The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes."


* "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."


* "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples."

Continue reading HERE

Hat Tip:

WorldNetDaily

The Spiritual Problem of the Homosexual Agenda

One homosexual judge overturned the votes of 7 million California voters! What could be more unfair, undemocratic, unconstitutional and outrageously biased against the state of California, biased against the majority of voters in our state, and radically disparaging against our Constitutional Republic than that?

Christian News Wire:

Chief Judge of Federal District Court in San Francisco Vaughn R. Walker Overturns Proposition 8
Contact: Karen England, Capitol Resource Institute, 916-212-5607

MEDIA ADVISORY, Aug. 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- Proposition 8, the 2008 California Constitutional amendment defining and recognizing marriage between a man and a woman, suffered a severe blow. Judge Walker ruled against the voters who approved Proposition 8 by 52 percent of the vote.

After California's Supreme Court overturned proposition 22, the statute approved by voters defining marriage, the voters took to the polls in reaction to the court's judicial activism.

"Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view," said Karen England Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI). "Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California's Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage."

The case will head to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a court popularly known for its left-of-center rulings.

Homosexuality isn't just a behavioral problem. It isn't just a "rights" problem. It isn't just a legal problem. It isn't just an emotional problem. It is a spiritual problem.

Even though the following essay was written years ago, Pastor DL Foster's Gay Christian Movement Watch: Gay Marriage - the Days of Noah Return post is one of the best I've ever read on the topic.

As you read the post at GCMWatch, you will notice a link between the "Days of Noah" and the "Days of Lot." This was an awesome discovery! Jesus himself likened the "signs of the times" of his return as being "as in the days of Lot" and "as in the days of Noah."

Excerpt:

Folger recounts how what we are seeing happen now before our very eyes is the beginning fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen before his return. Moreover, the people had sunken into such a perpetually degenerative moral condition these things were celebrated and viewed as normal.

As I wrote about in my book, “The Criminalization of Christianity,” Jeffrey Satinover, who holds an M.D. from Princeton and doctorates from Yale, MIT and Harvard, was on my radio program one day and I asked him about where we are in history. He explained that according to the “Babylonian Talmud” – the book of rabbis’ interpretation of the scriptures 1,000 years before Christ, there was only one time in history that reflects where we are right now. There was only one time in history, according to these writings, where men were given in marriage to men, and women given in marriage to women.

Want to venture a guess as to when? No, it wasn’t in Sodom and Gomorrah, although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course, but according to the Talmud, not homosexual “marriage.” What about ancient Greece? Rome? No. Babylon? No again. The one time in history when homosexual “marriage” was practiced was … during the days of Noah. And according to Satinover, that’s what the “Babylonian Talmud” attributes as the final straw that led to the Flood.

Folger’s article also contains astonishing commentary by Rabbi Aryeh Spero on what the Talmud reveals about homosexuality, state sanctioned homosexual weddings and the coming judgment of God.

25But first must He [Christ] suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man:
27They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28“Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30“Even thus shall it be in the Day when the Son of Man is revealed.

Notice that Jesus compared Noah’s day to Sodom and Gomorrah and then linked it to the time of his return.

Because the inhabitants of the earth had become so evil, God anointed Noah to preach righteousness and repentance right up until the time the door of the ark closed shut. He preached the same message for over 100 years. This was the mercy of God in action, a window of opportunity to repent. Some listened at first, but then overcome by the sin around them, eventually ignored Noah. Noah was openly vilified, mocked and called a liar. Why? Because the people saw no rain and they did not want to believe their activities were wrong.

Read the entire essay HERE.


In June of 2008, I linked to Pastor Foster's post and wrote an essay here at Talk Wisdom:

The Days of Noah Are Here.


Hat Tips:

Christian News Wire

Gay Christian Movement Watch

*******
Cross posted at Talk Wisdom

Prop. 8 Lawsuit is Attack Against Natural Marriage & Our Republic

SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE
June 16, 2010 -- For Immediate Release

Randy Thomasson’s comment on Prop. 8 Closing Arguments
“The lawsuit against Prop. 8 by Ted Olson and David Boies is more than an attack against natural marriage, it’s an attack against our republic and our democracy.”

WATCH: Randy Thomasson's comments on News10 Sacramento 6/16/10

Sacramento, California – California pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, issued the following statement about closing arguments in San Francisco today in the federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment that reserved marriage licenses for “a man and a woman”:

“The lawsuit against Prop. 8 by Ted Olson and David Boies is more than an attack against natural marriage, it’s an attack against our republic and our democracy. Our republic, because a judge took this case and made a circus out of it, despite the word ‘marriage’ not being in the U.S. Constitution and the Tenth Amendment protecting states’ rights to define marriage. Our democracy, because the voters of California have twice passed ballot measures defining marriage, even defining marriage in the California Constitution. If the federal courts strike down Prop. 8, they will have declared war on the voters in 30 states that have defined marriage in their state constitutions.

"What will be the outcome of this case? Judge Walker, a homosexual himself, has been demanding answers to questions about issues that are not in the written federal or state constitutions, but are designed to set up the federal courts to unscientifically declare homosexuality an 'immutable' class, like race or sex. Doing this dirty judicial deed would trample religious freedom and free speech, which is specifically enshrined in the First Amendment.

“This kangaroo court is a public relations coup for homosexual-marriage advocates, who want to keep their ‘gay marriage’ drum beating loudly in hopes of stirring up donors and volunteers to reverse Prop. 8 on the ballot in 2012 or 2014. But it won’t work, because the natural, beautiful relationship of a man and a woman, united in marriage, is a standard indelibly etched on the human heart.”

-- end --

Randy Thomasson and SaveCalifornia.com are not party to the Prop. 8 case. Randy Thomasson has been defending marriage licenses and marriage rights for one man and one woman throughout California since 1994.

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing children and families. We stand for marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

Hat Tip:

Save California.com

Cornerstone Of Our Civilization

Marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of our civilization. - Congressman Steve King. Be sure to go to the World Net Daily Radio America site to listen to the entire interview. It's excellent!

Court Upholds Only Half of Prop. 8??

'An arm and a leg cut off marriage'

California Supreme Court upholds only half of Prop. 8

Sacramento, California -- Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court that some 18,000 homosexual "marriages" are valid, despite the vote of the people to prohibit such legal recognition, has frustrated and disappointed pro-family citizens who voted for true protection of marriage licenses for a man and a woman.

"While it was good that the majority of the justices ruled only man-woman marriages could be performed after Prop. 8 passed, it's wrong and unconstitutional for the judges to permit counterfeit marriages in clear violation of Prop. 8," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a statewide pro-family organization that has been fighting for natural marriage in California for more than a decade. "An arm and a leg have been cut off the natural institution of marriage in California."

Prop. 8 proponents' rebuttal arguments in the voter information guide stated: "Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed." Thomasson said, "'Regardless of when...performed' obviously means that pre-existing same-sex 'marriages' are not valid in light of Prop. 8. Why is it so hard to understand what the words 'is' and 'when' mean?"

"The judges have ignored the straightforward, retroactive effect of Prop. 8, which specified that the only valid marriage in California 'is' between a man and a woman, 'regardless of when' the marriage was performed," said Thomasson. "This is unconstitutional and unjust. The court's own rules require that the counterfeit marriages be declared null and void. But instead of respecting the clear text of Prop. 8 and by ignoring the clarifying ballot statements, the court has gone with its own feelings and its own social agenda in violation of the judges' solemn oaths to uphold the written constitution. The voters have been handed back an altered ballot." Today's decision means every homosexual couple that wanted a "same-sex marriage" last year, got one. The decision also means some 18,000 counterfeit marriages will be held out as role models to impressionable children. "By allowing these numerous false marriages to stand, the Supreme Court is holding out to impressionable boys and girls the unnatural role model of homosexual 'marriages'" said Thomasson. "This is not what the people of California voted for. They voted to ensure that the only marriage in California is a marriage between a man and a woman."

The California Supreme Court's own rules depend on ballot arguments to determine voter intent: "In construing constitutional and statutory provisions, whether enacted by the Legislature or by initiative, the intent of the enacting body is the paramount consideration.... We are mindful that the goal of statutory construction is ascertainment of legislative intent so that the purpose of the law may be effectuated." -- In re Lance W. (1985), 37 Cal.3d at 889. Evidence of the legislative or popular intent of an enactment includes not merely the text of the amendment, but also other "indicia of voters' intent," including ballot summaries and arguments. -- Legislature v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d at 504; Lance W., 37 Cal.3d at 888 n.8.

Prop. 8 was approved last fall by 52.3% of the voters. It added Section 7.5 to Article 1 of the California Constitution, reading, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The vote of the people overruled the California Supreme Court, which, on a 4 to 3 vote, had invented "same-sex marriages" in May 2008.
-- end --

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing children and families. We stand for marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

Keep Fighting for our Children!

The following is a copy of a post from my Talk Wisdom blog. There are several reasons why Christians must continue to fight against the rise of the radical homosexual agenda. The main reason is because religious freedom, and the right to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ depends upon it! We must also do it for the sake of our children!!

The indoctrination of homosexuality going on throughout our nation these days is increasing exponentially now that they perceive Resident Obama as a key ally in the White House.

Here is the Talk Wisdom post:


Have you noticed this? The 'gay rights' political machine is thoroughly intent on steamrolling over the majority of the public opinion that holds to the definition of marriage to remain as one man and one woman. In addition, those who hold objections to the homosexual mafia's continual bullying and enforcement of 'gay' issues almost have the appearance of not mattering to Christians anymore.

But don't you ever believe that!

It is one of Satan's greatest ploys - to get believers in Jesus Christ to care more about being "liked" rather than to preach the need for sinners to repent and apply the true gospel for the salvation of souls.

There are several articles about the current rapid fire of events being forced upon America by the radical homosexual agenda activists over at World Net Daily.

1. Christian college creates homosexual housing
'It's a chance for students to be part of a unique experience'

2. Iowa, Vermont 'marriage' decisions 'aberrations'
30 states have 1-man, 1-woman definitions in constitutions

There are several more to read over at WorldNetDaily. Even Michael Savage, who became a new columnist at that website today, has his say in The Rising Tide of Pink Fascism .

There is hope, though. There is always hope! When and in Whom? It is when Christians and conservatives don't give up the fight, continue to speak their minds which are guided by the Holy Spirit of God. Share the Gospel of Christ and take a stand against the moral decline happening in our society today. Read and study the Bible so that you are properly equipped in this battle between good and evil.

The following article is just one example that shows how persistence often pays off:


3. 'Gay' promo objections get eHarmony attention
Customer confirms refund after opposing moral change

Last, but certainly not least, we can see why this problem is widening with wishy-washy, namby-pamby pastors like Rick Warren:

4. America's wishy-washy pastors

It is just too good and too important to only post an excerpt, so here is the article in it's entirety:

Quote:

America's wishy-washy pastors

Posted: April 08, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

America achieved its independence and freedom in the 18th century in large part because colonial pastors stood up for biblical principles, preached them, lived them and refused to back down from them – even in the face of death.

The American War of Independence has been accurately called a "pulpit revolution" for this reason. It was inspired by great men of God who recognized evil and called it by its right name.

What a difference two centuries, combined with affluence and the corporatization of the 501(c)3 church culture has made.

A good example of this was on display on CNN's "Larry King Live" this week, as "America's Pastor" Rick Warren did a soft shoe act on his role in the same-sex marriage battle over Proposition 8 in California.

"You know, Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told," he said. "In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be. During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never – never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going. The week before the – the vote, somebody in my church said, Pastor Rick, what – what do you think about this? And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is – really should be defined, that that definition should be – say between a man and a woman.

"And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn't," Warren continued. "And I actually – there were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends – the leaders that I knew – and actually apologized to them. That never got out. There were some things said that – you know, everybody should have 10 percent grace when they say public statements. And I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe. And I actually announced that. All of the criticism came from people that didn't know me. Not a single criticism came from any gay leader who knows me and knows that for years, we've been working together on AIDS issues and all these other things."

What are we to make of such mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, namby-pamby hokum?

It's a great illustration of America's most prominent church leader equivocating and backtracking and saying almost nothing coherent so that he will offend no one.

Let me lay it on the line: This is not the way Yeshua talked or behaved. It is not the example of the one whom Rick Warren claims to emulate and worship. There is nothing prophetic or biblical or courageous or principled about this kind of Christian witness.

If there is a subject upon which the Bible is crystal clear – from beginning to end – it is homosexuality. Another subject about which no one can misinterpret what the Bible says is marriage. Let's examine the text:

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


Romans 1:22-27: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

Some suggest Yeshua (Jesus) Himself was silent on these matters. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, Yeshua said He did not come to overturn the law but to fulfill it. He taught that He was and is the Word – its living fulfillment. He explained that He is eternal and created the Heavens, the Earth and man. The Bible also says God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. And Yeshua never contradicted any of the law. He quoted from it. He taught from it. He explained it. He affirmed it. On the road to Emmaus, He gave two disciples a Bible study from the Torah, revealing Himself at the very core of it.

The law, in fact, was the measuring stick by which He was judged perfect and worthy of serving as the atonement for the sins of mankind – including the sin of abominations like homosexuality.

But Yeshua also spoke very specifically and clearly on the subject about which Rick Warren appears so self-consciously waffling.

In Matthew 19:4-6, it says: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Here Yeshua had a golden opportunity to explain any middle ground in this issue of men and women – if there were any.

There is no middle ground on this issue.

Either you believe the Bible or you don't.

If you don't, there are consequences. If you do, you are obligated to take a stand for righteousness. Of course, there are worldly consequences for that, too – for some apparently too great to accept.

Followers of Yeshua have a choice: They can please God or please men. They can accept God's laws, which are not burdensome, and obey them, or they can reject them and try to tickle the ears of men. They can offend God or offend men.

But followers of Jesus cannot find some happy medium where they can please God and please the world. Nobody can.

It's time for America's pastor class to decide where they stand – with the world or with the God of the universe.


Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His book "Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality and Justice" has gained newfound popularity in the wake of November's election. Farah also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.


Hat Tip:

World Net Daily

Conscience Collides With Political Correctness

How many readers of this blog recall the signs that used to appear in restaurants and bars that said, "We reserve the right to not serve anyone?" At least I think that is how it was worded.

Today, we often find signs that state, "No shirt, no service." or "No shoes, no service."

What was the message behind such signs? The owner of the business had free speech rights to serve, or not serve a person based on their particular behavior.

If a person came into a restaurant without wearing a shirt or shoes, the restaurant owner had the right to refuse service. If a person came into a bar and was boisterous, obnoxious, cursing or - clearly already drunk - the bar tender had the absolute right to not serve that person any alcohol. What's more, the bouncer had the right (as per the instructions of the owner) to escort such a person off the premises!

Our First Amendment rights not only include freedom of speech and freedom of religion; but also freedom of association.

Today, because of ultra-tolerance and political correctness and "hate speech" inferences, the refusal for service by any business owner is often misconstrued as "bigotry," "hatred," "intolerance," etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. The following link is a case in point:

ADF Truth and Triumph: Point & Shoot
What happens when a photographer's conscience collides with political correctness.

When you read the article, you will see that this Christian woman was CLEARLY TARGETED by the lesbian couple who wanted to punish her for her refusal to photograph their "commitment ceremony." There were PLENTY of other photographers willing to take the job. So, why did they sue this one person?


Gotta run out. Will return to finish this post later.

CA Justices Recall Threat

Obviously, an LA Times blog would word such a post differently than I would. My choice of a title would have been, "Traditional marriage supporters threaten to recall California Supreme Court justices." Anyway, here's the post:

Gay marriage foes threaten to recall California Supreme Court justices
11:45 PM, November 19, 2008
Last week, the aggressive tactics of Prop. 8 opponents -- street protests, boycotts of business -- made headlines. This week, it appears that backers of the ban on gay marriage are the ones making threats. Yes on 8 forces are talking about a recall against members of the California Supreme Court if they throw out the measure.

To some, the recall talk marks another increase in the post-election battle and a response to the No on 8 protests:

"This push-back in the last two weeks has actually mobilized the Yes on 8 people," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. If the California Supreme Court were to overturn Proposition 8, "you will see a mobilized group like you have never seen in the state of California." Rodriguez said in an interview Tuesday that some religious leaders are discussing a potential recall of Supreme Court justices. He expects the Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, and if that happens, "there are grounds for a recall. We saw that with Gray Davis," he said. "We have an oligarchy, an oligarchy in judges' role in the state of California."

Remember the Gray Davis recall? Well, one of the figures behind it thinks a Prop. 8 recall effort if the justices toss the measure out is a real possibility. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune:

If that happens, watch out for a "barn-burner of an election -- the biggest thing this state has ever seen," says recall election guru Ted Costa. Costa says he's already been contacted by some of the folks who would seek to recall Ronald George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno if Prop. 8 is scrapped. He thinks it's premature and risky because talk of a recall "would just (bleep) off the judges." Costa also doesn't sound like he's too thrilled about such a recall, saying it wouldn't be "healthy." Citing all the financial turmoil in California, he said, "If someone's going to do some recalling, that should be the focus."

When it comes to judicial recalls, one woman's name says it all. And Jon Fleischman utters it: "No government official is immune from the voters’ will, whether they be in the executive, legislative or, yes, even in the judicial branch. Remember Rose Bird?"

-- Shelby Grad

HT: LA Times Blogs