Posted on 08/06/2010 7:22:52 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
That's right: On page 101 (p. 103 of the PDF available here) of his decisions, Judge Vaughn Walker writes*:
77. Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
a. PX2547 (Nathanson Nov 12, 2009 Dep Tr 102:3-8: Religions teach that homosexual relations are a sin and that contributes to gay bashing); PX2546 (video of same);
b. PX2545 (Young Nov 13, 2009 Dep Tr 55:15-55:20, 56:21-57:7: There is a religious component to the bigotry and prejudice against gay and lesbian individuals); see also id at 61:18-22, 62:13-17 (Catholic Church views homosexuality as 'sinful.'); PX2544 (video of same);
c. Tr 1565:2-1566:6 (Segura: 'Religion is the chief obstacle for gay and lesbian political progress, and it’s the chief obstacle for a couple of reasons. * * * It’s difficult to think of a more powerful social entity in American society than the church. * * * It’s a very powerful organization, and in large measure they are arrayed against the interests of gays and lesbians. * * * Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and the teaching that gays are morally inferior on a regular basis to a huge percentage of the public makes the * * * political opportunity structure very hostile to gay interests. It’s very difficult to overcome that.');
d. PX0390 Video, Ron Prentice Addressing Supporters of Proposition 8, Part I at 0:20-0:40: Prentice explains that 'God has led the way' for the Protect Marriage campaign and at 4:00-4:30: Prentice explains that 'we do mind' when same-sex couples want to take the name 'marriage' and apply it to their relationships, because 'that’s not what God wanted. * * * It’s real basic. * * * It starts at Genesis 2.';
e. Tr 395:14-18 (Chauncey: Many clergy in churches considered homosexuality a sin, preached against it and have led campaigns against gay rights.); United States District Court For the Northern District of California
f. Tr 440:19-441:2 (Chauncey: The religious arguments that were mobilized in the 1950s to argue against interracial marriage and integration as against God’s will are mirrored by arguments that have been mobilized in the Proposition 8 campaign and many of the campaigns since Anita Bryant’s 'Save Our Children' campaign, which argue that homosexuality itself or gay people or the recognition of their equality is against God’s will.);
g. PX2853 Proposition 8 Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008, CNN at 8: 84 percent of people who attended church weekly voted in favor of Proposition 8;
h. PX0005 Leaflet, James L Garlow, The Ten Declarations For Protecting Biblical Marriage at 1 (June 25, 2008): 'The Bible defines marriage as a covenantal union of one male and one female. * * * We will avoid unproductive arguments with those who, through the use of casuistry and rationalization, revise biblical passages in order to condone the practice of homosexuality or other sexual sins.';
i. PX0770 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons at 2: 'Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as ‘a serious depravity.’';
j. PX0301 Catholics for the Common Good, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, Excerpts from Vatican Document on Legal Recognition of Homosexual Unions (Nov 22, 2009): There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be 'in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family'; 'homosexual acts go against the natural moral law' and 'under no circumstances can * * * be approved'; 'the homosexual inclination is * * * objectively disordered and homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to chastity'; 'allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children'; and 'legal recognition of homosexual unions * * * would mean * * * the approval of deviant behavior.';
k. PX0168 Southern Baptist Convention, SBC Resolution, On Same-Sex Marriage at 1 (June 2003): 'Legalizing ‘same-sex marriage’ would convey a societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large.';
l. PX0771 Southern Baptist Convention, Resolution on President Clinton’s Gay and Lesbian Pride Month Proclamation (June 1999): 'The Bible clearly teaches that United States District Court For the Northern District of California homosexual behavior is an abomination and shameful before God.';
m. PX2839 Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Position Paper on Homosexuality at 3: 'Homosexual practice is a distortion of the image of God as it is still reflected in fallen man, and a perversion of the sexual relationship as God intended it to be.';
n. PX2840 The Christian Life - Christian Conduct: As Regards the Institutions of God, Free Methodist Church at
5: 'Homosexual behavior, as all sexual deviation, is a perversion of God’s created order.';
o. PX2842 A L Barry, What About * * * Homosexuality, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod at 1: 'The Lord teaches us through His Word that homosexuality is a sinful distortion of His desire that one man and one woman live together in marriage as husband and wife.';
p. PX2844 On Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life, Orthodox Church of America at 1: 'Homosexuality is to be approached as the result of humanity’s rebellion against God.';
q. Tr 1566:18-22 (Segura: 'Proponents’ expert Dr Young freely admits that religious hostility to homosexuals plays an important role in creating a social climate that’s conducive to hateful acts, to opposition to their interest in the public sphere and to prejudice and discrimination.');
r. Tr 2676:8-2678:24 (Miller: Miller agrees with his former statement that 'the religious characteristics of California’s Democratic voters' explain why so many Democrats voted for Barack Obama and also for Proposition 8.).
Now, not being a lawyer I can't speak with authority on the significance of findings of fact, but it's my understanding that in a decision like this, you have findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and that findings of fact are not generally understood to be open to challenge in the appellate court; thus what Judge Walker has very blatantly tried to do is insulate his decision from review by loading up his findings of fact the way he has. I zeroed in on 77 because I thought it was the most obvious tip of the spear that will be used one day to persecute people of faith who believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, but from skimming the decision it appears there are many more such findings of "fact" that are nothing more than opinion and wishful thinking based on emotion, selective quoting of research, and poor definitions and assumptions. And those are just the ones in the 60's and 70's.
As with all decisions such as these, be on the lookout for the Curmudgeon's take. We'll link it when he posts something.
...
Based on this article, I am surprised he did not go ahead and rule that “religious teachings” are illegal. That is exactly what they really want to do.
It’s coming.
There really isn’t any way to stop it,
but we can defy it!
guess we all have to become muslim, it’s the only “religion” the courts and guvmint won’t touch
bookmark.
This is why Obama Admin is trying to change the enumerated Freedom of Religion to Freedom of Worship.
The left’s concept of a living Constitution allows for the Orwellian change even though it would take a the force of law and procedure to change it in reality.
These people don’t care a whit about law.
“Let’s be clear, however; language matters when it comes to defining freedoms and limits. A shift from freedom of religion to freedom of worship moves the dialog from the world stage into the physical confines of a church, temple, synagogue or mosque. Such limitations can unleash an unbridled initiative that we have only experienced in a mild way through actions determined to remove of roadside crosses, wearing of religious t-shirts and pro-life pins as well as any initiatives of evangelization. It also could exclude our right to raise our children in our faith, the right to religious education, literature or media, the right to raise funds or organize charitable activities and the right to express religious beliefs in the normal discourse of life.”
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=
In their viewpoint and the viewpoint of the judge, we have ample opportunity to worship just as long as we don’t voice it outside our churches.
This is exactly the same thing the Communists did. Then they went after the churches to shut them down when they didn’t submit.
it’s already happening in the UK.
It is really ironic, since Muslims would stone a homo to death.
Notice finding of fact #77 didn't discuss any religion other than Christianity? Mainstream Isalm imposes more harsh penalties on homosexuality than does mainstream Christianity.
As for Judge Walker assigning his various remarks the label "finding of fact," the correct response is "so what?" Some of his remarks are conclusions, predictions, and opinions. Appellate judges are not obliged to adopt his labeling.
To an person practiced in the faiths of either traditional Judaism or Christianity, it’s a distinction without a difference, as one’s whole life is supposed to be an act of worship to God. Worship doesn’t just happen in a temple, synagogue, chapel, or cathedral. But how the eggheads will see this is another question entirely.
Well as they say in kindergarten, Sharia and Sharia alike!
In appeal the entire ‘fact finding’ should be tossed. A Judge is not a legislator and he had no authority for such findings.
He is just working backward from a pre drawn conclusion. He is a cork sucker, period. So he will defend that to the end. Screw anything else. Maybe they should build their homo church next to a mosque.
Is there such a thing as overturning a ruling as “malformed”? If obvious opinions are labeled as “found facts” that’s like starting a “Webster’s Dictionary” with the “K” entries.
Moreover it was custom in saner times to hear facts before a citizen jury of adult freeholders in good standing, and not a singleton (and in this case, insane) Judge, when general society-based facts were to be heard. Say with a land condemnation procedure, where the proposed use — as to whether it was a a public necessity not otherwise achievable — had to be weighed.
“It is really ironic, since Muslims would stone a homo to death.”
Except when it’s their own brand of homosexuality.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/afghan-men-struggle-sexual-identity-study-finds/
I don't know if the term "malformed" is used. A good writer will correctly describe the nature of the assertion, and then work from that point. The vernacular is that findings of fact can be discarded if they are clearly erroneous, but that presupposes the label "finding of fact" is suitable in the first place.
Also, there is good argument that -in this case- the facts don't matter at all, for appellate review. That they serve a political point, but -in this case- have no legal function.
Oh really? Just wait 'till the Teacher gets ahold of them.
GREAT point!!
Confiscate all, board up churches, synagogues, mosques and other sponsors of HATE.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, as this judge has ordered Prop 8 "illegal," it's high time to follow up all with sacred book burnings and houses of worship shut down forever. (Didn't they already do that in the Soviet Union?????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.