Pink Judges and Proposition 8

The Past.....

...and the future: lesbian Supreme Court Judge Elena Kagan.

As already anticipated yesterday, I’d like to say one or two words about the Proposition 8 sentence. The sentence is very long, so I am going to isolate and comment those parts which have been most commented.

Beforehand: please note that Judge Walker – who has decided over the legitimacy of 7 million people to decide whether he is a pervert or not – is himself an outed homosexual.

Anyway, the most relevant phrases found are the following:

“A private moral view that Same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation.”

This is absurd judicial activism and is wrong on so  many levels that one doesn’t know where to start

1) It is not for a judge to decide what is a proper basis for legislation. If this be so, the judges of this land would squarely invade the role of the legislative organs as they would just decide that every principle they don’t like is “not a proper basis for legislation”.

2) The expression “private moral view” has no sense at all. Every moral view is private and the sum of the private moral views is what constitutes public morality. That incest be bad is no more and no less a private moral view than that homosexuality be bad. But the fact that the majority believes that it is so gives a social moral dimension to the issue.

3) I’d love to know which piece of legislation going beyond the purely technical and involving people’s behaviour is not the fruit of a moral view. What is forbidden is, in his essence, what is considered immoral. There’s no way one can take morality out of the equation.

4) I’d love to know what is, according to Mr. Walker, a moral view which is “not private”. Not stopping at a red light? Not paying taxes? Murdering people? Why should the evaluation of all these behaviours be anything else than the sum of private moral views?

5) I don’t know whence the judge takes his idea that same-sex so-called couples be “couples”, but discriminated because considered “inferior”. Same-sex couples are an abomination, “inferiority” is nothing to do with that. Two siblings happily screwing each other are not a “couple” being “discriminated” because considered “inferior”. They are two perverts, period.

Basically there is not a single word in this hallucinated phrase which does not show a total lack of respect for people’s morality, and for democracy. The only thing we read here is that a homosexual doesn’t see the right of other people to democratically decide what is moral.

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

This is another astonishing feat of ideological bias. I’d like someone to show me where the American Constitution (in light of which Mr. Walker was called to rule about Proposition Eight) has been amended saying that marriage was once, but is now nothing to do with gender anymore. This is pure activism. Legislation from the bench. It reminds me of the pretori d’assalto in the Seventies’ Italy, an ideological aberration rapidly corrected in the following years. It is obvious that the United States are suffering the same problem (ideologically motivated judges wanting to reshape legislation according to their wishes) now. Again, with this logic “marriage” should be extended to incestuous couples as “equals”. This goes to show what happens if you allow a homosexual to decide about sexual matters.

“Because of Proposition 8, same-sex couples are not permitted to engage in sexual activity within marriage”.

More absurdities: if you don’t allow perverts to marry, it is obvious that they will not have “sex within marriage”. With the same train of thought, Judge Walker could complain that forbidding incestuous marriages is unconstitutional, because it does not allow siblings to engage in sexual activity within marriage.

_____________________________

This seems to me enough (for the moment at least) to properly consider the baffling amount of bench activism going on here. That it comes from a judge who is himself affected by the same perversion against which his fellow Californian have voted makes the entire process even more absurd, as it is absurd to think that his own perversion has not played a decisive role in his ruling.

To have a homosexual decide about the right of homosexuals is the same as to have a paedophile decide about the legality of pedophilia, or to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Mundabor

Posted on August 6, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. The decision was a foregone conclusion.

    Solipsists are legislating from the bench, with sometimes lethal consequences.

    The ‘Kennedy Opinion’ in ‘Planned Parenthood v Casey’ is a case in point.

    There, Kennedy basically says that everyone has a right to create a world after their own image: so carry on aborting if that’s what rocks your world.

    This insanity will bring America down.

    Morality is discovered not invented: the Natural Law, written on our hearts by our Creator.

    • “Morality is discovered not invented: the Natural Law, written on our hearts by our Creator”.
      Fully agree.

      In Walker’s case, though, the most absurd aspect seems to me not that he despises natural law (which as an unrepentant homo is rather to be expected), but that he despises democracy too. This is what baffles me. It is like saying “democracy is good, but whenever the people decides in a way I don;t liek I’ll have to intervene and correct them”. These liberals are tue nazis and the freedom to pursue whatever perversion is their Fuehrerprinzip.

      M

  2. Trip to the Outhouse

    You say this: “This is another astonishing feat of ideological bias. I’d like someone to show me where the American Constitution (in light of which Mr. Walker was called to rule about Proposition Eight) has been amended saying that marriage was once, but is now nothing to do with gender anymore.”

    But I ask you where does the U.S. Constitution say anything about marriage? That was one of many things that the writers of the Constitution left to the states. That’s why states allow people of different ages to get married, why some states allow cousins to get married, and one state must accept another state’s laws about marriage. That’s why if you get married at 16 in one state, you’re still married in another where you can’t get married until 18.

    And I’m sure, you are one of those who is always calling for less big government interference, but was totally for DOMA and want a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

    If you don’t want gay marriage, don’t have one. How does it interfere with your life in the least?

    • On the marriage: if the Federal Constitution doesn’t say anything about marriage, than this is competence of the States. The Californian Constitution says that a mariage is between a man and a woman. Your argument doesn’t stand.

      On how it interferes: homosexuality interferes with my life because it is a perversion, and a perversion which people want institutionalised at that.

      If marriages between a man and a dog, or between a man and his daughter, or between a man and his brother were institutionalised (or even contemplated), I truly want to hope that this would interfere with your life, too and if it doesn’t, this proves my argument once more.

      Being a Christian (or being a decent person, come to that) is not something which ends at my door. It is something concerning the society in which the Christians live.
      Similarly, “morals” is not just something which ends with my garden: there is something like mores, the way a society organises and disciplines behaviour, the colllective morality it gives itself. No society escapes this, as no society has ever worked or could ever work as a collection of anarchies.

      The idea that everyone can do whatever he pleases is neither here nor there, is nothing to do with morality and is even nothing to do with freedom, because freedom is always exercised within a given frame (a religious one, hopefully; certainly a legislative one).
      Halfway rational and decent societies have never allowed people to say “if I want to marry my dog (or my sheep, or my ass, or my daughter, or my sister….. the list is long) and he/she/it is happy, how does it interfere with your life?” The same happens for many other behaviours for which the very same questions could be posed (from drug use to self-mutilation, the list is long here too).

      From a more specifically Christian perspective, homosexuality goes against Christianity and goes against natural law. To try to have it forbidden is not even an option, but a Christian duty. No constitution or state legislation or even “common morality” will ever dissuade Christians to stop insisting for the respect of natural law. Natural law comes from God, it does not depend from court decisions.

      M

  3. I concur with what you have written here, Mundabor, except the implication (or or so it seems) that democracy might be able to determine morality.

    • Hello (10)1263,

      I do not mean that democracy determines morality, what I mean is that whilst morality operates on a level which exists before and outside of democracy (the Natural Law is as eternal and immutable as God Himself), in modern democracy the will of the people is what decides what moral criterias should be applied to the organisation of society.

      Example: abortion is murder according to the natural law, but it is legal in most democracies. One doesn’t go to jail for having or procuring an abortion because the collective will of the people (however determined) has decided that it should not be so.

      So we have two planes: the one on which the Divine Law works (which can never be changed by human decisions) and the plane on which human laws work (which in Nazi Germany was Fuehrerprinzip and in a modern representative democracy is: the will of the majority of the people).

      I do not expect that a secular leftist accepts the first point of view, but I do expect that he accepts the second if he is to call himself “democratic”.

      Let me put it in another way: whilst I do not recognise from a theological point of view the right of any democracy to legislate the legality of abortion, I am against the killing of those who procure it, because I accept that once the democracy I live in has decided that such a behaviour is legal, it is not for me to go and shoot the chap in the head. As I support democracy, I will instead fight with a view of having the relevant law substituted by new ones, the fruit of democratic deliberations. What I can’t say, is that I support democracy only when the decisions it takes are to my liking.

      M

  4. This Walker reminds me of Tony Benn.

    As an undergraduate I read Benn’s “Arguments for Democracy” and “Arguments for Socialism”. One of the things which struck me most strongly about the two books was the moral basis for Benn’s political opinions. Democracy was moral. Socialism was moral. (In Benn’s view, of course.)

    A couple of years later David Alton introduced his private member’s bill to restrict late abortions. My students’ union, like many others across the land, threw a fit and contributed to an extensive campaign “FAB” – “Fight Alton’s Bill”. One of the things they did was write to MPs in opposition to the bill. They posted many replies prominently in the students’ union building. One was from Tony Benn himself.

    “You can’t legislate for morality.”

    Hypocrite!

  5. Someone wrote:

    “If you don’t want gay marriage, don’t have one. How does it interfere with your life in the least?”

    You answered that rather well, Mundabor.

    I would add that marriage is a public act, positive approval by society of the basic family unit. It is not a private matter between individuals. And I would turn the question round – if those who promote “gay” “marriage” think such relationships are a private matter between individuals, and do not concern the rest of us – why do they want public recognition?

    • “if those who promote “gay” “marriage” think such relationships are a private matter between individuals, and do not concern the rest of us – why do they want public recognition?”

      Excellent argument, (10)1263.

  6. “I would add that marriage is a public act, positive approval by society of the basic family unit. It is not a private matter between individuals. And I would turn the question round – if those who promote “gay” “marriage” think such relationships are a private matter between individuals, and do not concern the rest of us – why do they want public recognition?”

    Great point followed by a great question.

    Marriage predates the modern state; marriage has been recognised for thousands of years as the union of one man and one woman: it can’t simply be arbitrarily redefined, as you’ve pointed out , Mundabor.

    Liberals know that they can’t get the votes they need to reinvent morality so they rely on activist judges to impose their agenda on the people.

    ‘Outhouse’ asks a dumb question, “How does it (“gay marriage”) interfere with your life in the least?”

    A bit like saying, ‘How does my using counterfeit money affect your money?’

    Well, just as counterfeit money devalues real money, so “gay marrige” devalues real marriage.

%d bloggers like this: