Judge Walker v. The Laws of Nature and Nature's God

Thomas Jefferson, a deist, and Alexander Hamilton, an Episcopalian, anchored opposite ends of the political spectrum in the early years of the republic but agreed on one basic proposition: The nation's laws must follow God's laws.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled last week from a courtroom in San Francisco that "same-sex marriage" is a constitutional right, views Americans who agree with Jefferson and Hamilton as religiously motivated bigots.

"Good and wise men, in all ages ... have supposed that the Deity, from the relations we stand in to Himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever," Hamilton wrote in 1775. "Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind."

A year later, Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that "to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

In declaring that the Constitution guarantees two men a "right" to marry -- and become parents of children through, if necessary, "assistive reproductive technology" -- Judge Walker said, "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."

"A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation," he said.

The judge struck down California's voter-approved state constitutional amendment that reserved marriage to one man and one woman as illegitimate under the federal Constitution because, he said, it was based on the voters' understanding of morality.

Now, some might say: But thieves and murderers violate the rights to property and life of the people from whom they steal and take the lives. Who are the victims of two men who simply want to "marry" each other? What rights of these victims are violated?

Children form the first set of victims. If the Supreme Court upholds Walker's ruling, many children nationwide will be denied a mother or a father by acts of government.

In his opinion, Walker issued specific "findings of fact" that children do not need both a mother and a father and, by implication, that children have no right to a mother and a father that needs to be respected by the state.

"Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted," he wrote in finding of fact No. 71.

"Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted," he wrote in finding of fact No. 70. "The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology."

(In fact, the very brochure from the American Psychological Association that Judge Walker cited as evidence for this claim states: "Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.")

The judge also approvingly pointed to California laws that prohibit that state from preferring that a child have a mother and a father as opposed to two fathers.

"California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology," he wrote in finding of fact No. 49.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, he approvingly noted, "admits that California law protects the right of gay men and lesbians in same-sex relationships to be foster parents and to adopt children by forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

Concomitant with Judge Walker's "right" to marry comes the right of two men to contract with someone to conceive a child for them through "assistive reproductive technology," engage a woman to gestate that child for them in her womb, and then take custody of that child once the umbilical cord can be snipped.

Does a child have a right to be conceived and raised by a mother and a father? Or do two men have a right to hire a technician to secure an ovum for them, unite it with a sperm in some laboratory, and implant the child so conceived in a woman treated not as a mother but as a gestational mule?

There is no doubt what "the laws of nature" say: A man cannot conceive a child by another man.

In the same place that God said "you shall not kill" and "you shall not steal," he also said, "Honor your father and mother."

Judge Walker takes a different view. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians," he wrote in finding of fact No. 77. To support this view, he disapprovingly pointed to teachings of the Southern Baptist, Evangelical Presbyterian, Free Methodist, Lutheran-Missouri Synod, Orthodox and Catholic churches.

The Founding Fathers understood the laws of nature, the Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to be wholly consistent with one another. Judge Walker and the same-sex marriage movement have declared war on them all.

Liberal politicians ignore the will of the people, while liberal judges ignore the rule of law. When the politicians figure out how to bypass popular elections, there will be no way out.

Judge Walker takes a different view. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians," he wrote in finding of fact No. 77. To support this view, he disapprovingly pointed to teachings of the Southern Baptist, Evangelical Presbyterian, Free Methodist, Lutheran-Missouri Synod, Orthodox and Catholic churches.

Ping for later

Does a child have a right to be conceived and raised by a mother and a father?

No, but once conceived, the child has the right to live and the mother an obligation to see to defend that life.

Or do two men have a right to hire a technician to secure an ovum for them, unite it with a sperm in some laboratory, and implant the child so conceived in a woman treated not as a mother but as a gestational mule?

Not a natural right, but a legal one, albeit unnatural one if society grants it to them.

JMO

[The Founding Fathers understood the laws of nature]

Yep. And today the laws of nature are quantized via measurement of reproductive fitness.

Sex, Evolution and Behavior

By Martin Daly and Margo Wilson

25 years ago, Sex, Evolution and Behavior was one of the texts used for the Animal Behavior course in the biology dept of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod's Concordia College in Seward, Nebraska.

Read it, understand it. APPLY IT.

"The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true."
--Albert Einstein

Hmmm, I wonder what effect "Normalizing" the abomination of nature has upon the Social and Biological/reproductive fitness of societies that do the "normalizing"?

Got Due Penalty for Perversion?

Yes, Walker has decided that nature does not exist. He has decided that male and female are insignificant. In fact, he’s ruled that they are not REALITY.

Vaughn Walker has assaulted reality.

Some things are natural and some things are unnatural. We have led ourselves through so much in the area of biology to believe that we are the referees of the origin and the cessation of life, that we have come to believe that we are god.

We aren’t. That reality will be driven home to us by nature and Nature’s God.

If this ruling stands, then it will more quickly corrode this republic and this freedom shall not stand.

Not a natural right, but a legal one, albeit unnatural one if society grants it to them.

Society can't grant rights, only God can. Rights therefore stem from natural law not society. If society grants rights to someone, then it would be a privilege, not a right.

[Judge Walker takes a different view. “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians,”]

Walker would have fit right in with the rest of the insane inmates... who were running the German asylum back in 1933.

http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm

Jefferson is not a strict Deist. . .he definitely believed in a personal God and a God who was intimately involved in the affairs of humanity. He also believed in Jesus, just not each and every doctrine pertaining to Jesus. He believed that the existence of God was a "self evident" truth. . .and that reasonable men should be able to rationally conclude, even without the aid of scripture or a religious dogma, that God was at the root of the infinite order of the universe.

This is why he emphasizes "the laws of nature and of nature's God" and "self evident truths" rather than citing the bible (in the Declaration). Another practical reason was that the potential of factionalism amongst the faithful was a real concern of the Founders.

14 prior Supreme Court decisions over a 100 year span have held that marriage is a RIGHT that comes from God/natural law.

The only difference with the current ruling is that those prior 14 decisions all had the same definition of marriage.

The most recent decision just changed the meaning of the word. If a judge can change the meaning of that word, then why not the meaning of other words such as the word RIGHTS itself, let alone words such as privileges, immunities, citizen, free, slave, up, down.

Noam Chomsky and Lewis Carroll win. Webster loses.

Lewis Carroll, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, was logician and fantasyist who observed the 1860 debate between debate between Bishop Wilberforce and Professor Huxley on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. He was ten times smarter than Chomsky, imo, but so far ahead of his time the rest of us have only now caught up with him.

His fantasy works were absolute mockeries of the cocksure up-and-coming secular intellectual class and how they thought. When Alice fell down the rabbit hole, wasn’t the idiocy she experienced there so similar to times we live through today with the fruit of the Darwin Tree at their high watermark running all institutions in an insanity Lewis Carroll’s works predicted.

The difference is that a Chomsky believes his own crap. Lewis Carroll saw that kind of philosophy it as the idiotic and inhuman fantasy it was then and most assuredly is now.

>>Jefferson is not a strict Deist. . .

What I see is that Jefferson believed in the right of Individuals, for whom ALMIGHTY GOD HATH CREATED THE MIND FREE, to use their free mind to seek out the self-evident Truth of their Creator - FOR THEMSELVES - without collective coercion.

John 14:6

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

If that's true, then it should be self-evident.

Americans are free to look and decide for themselves.

Walker substituted his morality for that of millions of Californians. One man rule is tyranny.

It is as simple as that.

Not a natural right, but a legal one, albeit unnatural one if society grants it to them.

I would agree -in the case of this the argument then is who grants such rights, benefits, privileges, and rewards extended by society to an individual. Is it some judge or society itself that is the authority...

[Article] U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled last week from a courtroom in San Francisco that "same-sex marriage" is a constitutional right, views Americans who agree with Jefferson and Hamilton as religiously motivated bigots.

Queer judge plays crooked umpire ping.

What I see is that Jefferson believed in the right of Individuals, for whom ALMIGHTY GOD HATH CREATED THE MIND FREE, to use their free mind to seek out the self-evident Truth of their Creator - FOR THEMSELVES - without collective coercion.

True that! Plus having our individual rights endowed by God meant that no earthly king nor sovereignty could usurp it!

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.