As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, the homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, who has decided that it is unconstitutional for 7 million Californians to decide what a “marriage” is (and that he is a pervert, by the way), has now decided that his ruling will not be suspended pending appeal.
This was largely expected, so no real bad news here. The battle is now going to move to the upper floors and in the end it will very probably arrive to the Supreme Court, the expectation that the Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals may defend democracy, elementary Christianity, common sense and basic decency being wildly optimistic.
Still, please allow me to spend two words on the editorial cut given by the san Francisco Chronicle to the event. A photo of two oldish pervs, “lovingly” holding each other, dominates the page. The article focuses on the oh so terrible, terrible trial of the two, who are now forced to wait, listen to this, until next Wednesday before they can “marry”. They were in the town hall already yesterday, but they “left disappointed and empty-handed”. Poor lambs. “They sure don’t make it easy on us”, comments one of the two aged Romeos. Difficult to bear. What a vale of tears life is.
Further echo to the local perverts is given: “”This shows our relationship is as valid as anyone’s,” says one of the two Romeos already seen and shows how deluded he is. “It’s a fantastic feeling”. “Feelings” everywhere. So feminine.
But the crown is left for the end; it comes from a young 18 years old from Amsterdam and thus obviously the last cry in matters of both wisdom and “inclusiveness”. “Everyone should have the right to marry who they want*”, he says and by doing so he confirms what Christians already know: that homos wouldn’t have any problem with incestuous “marriages”, provided they can get their way. And their way is, as we all know, a very painful and shitty one.
A pity that no one of the Romeos looked at Michael Voris’ video about Hell. Many of them will live to regret it.
* I’d have said “whom” but I am not a mother tongue so I am certainly wrong.
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.