Destroying Notion of Good and Evil: Core of Homosexual Offensive and Justice Walker’s Ruling

Justice Vaughn Walker’s ruling that California’s Prop 8 amendment—declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman—is unconstitutional is a serious challenge to the results of victorious referenda in 31 American states and an important step in the ongoing Cultural War against Christianity. Consequently, its analysis is important for all who stand for traditional marriage and the natural moral law.

Same-Sex “Marriage” is Not the Ultimate Goal of the Homosexual Lobby First of all, we should take note how Judge Walker’s ruling reveals how wrong we are to believe that the homosexual movement will be content and disband, once it imposes same-sex “marriage” on the nation.

The movement will neither stop nor be content, just as it was not satisfied in those states where it secured legalization of “domestic partnerships” and “civil unions.” Once the notion of the ultimate purpose of the sexual act and marriage is destroyed, a breach is opened through which all the demands of the so-called “sexual minorities” come charging through.

LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) is the movement’s most common acronym. Pressure has been growing over the years for the inclusion of new categories (Q, U, C, I, P, O, A, TS, Z), and everything indicates the acronym will expand.

But if we consider the acronym as it stands today, homosexual “marriage” satisfies (at least temporarily) only two of those categories, the “L” and the “G”. Two others still seek societal acceptance as far as “marriage” is concerned: the “B” (bisexual) and the “T” (transgender).

Having struck down Prop 8 for lack of a “rational basis” in restricting marriage to the union of one man and one woman, on what basis does Judge Walker restrict it to “a couple?” For if marriage is independent of the sex of the parties, and if—as stated in Judge Walker’s ruling—its decisive elements are (a) “choice,” (b) being “committed to one another,” and, (c) “form[ing] a household based on their own feelings about one another,”1 why can a bisexual woman not have a polyamorous group marriage with a man (“husband”) and another bisexual woman (“wife”), as happened in Holland in 2005?2

Overthrowing the Most Obvious Barrier... I insist on the crucial point: the difference between sexes as it exists in marriage the way it has always been understood, is the most obvious barrier to changing the concept of marriage. A mere look at the anatomy and physiology of the human body suffices to ascertain that men and women are sexually complementary and the difference in sex perfectly fulfills the end of the sexual act, which is human reproduction.

Once this obvious barrier is overthrown, how can anyone prevent other barriers from also falling, such as age (which prevents pedophilia), consanguinity (which preempts the practice of incest), or even the barrier of species (bestiality-zoophilia), a sexual aberration which is already being advocated?4

Someone will say that those extremes will never be attained because the opinion of experts is decisive in the courts today and they evidently need to maintain a modicum of scientific basis in their findings.

Activist “Experts” This is precisely where Judge Walker’s ruling helps clarify matters: he quoted the opinion of experts from the homosexual side who acted much more like ideological activists for the homosexual cause than scientists.5

a) “children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial … having parents of different genders is irrelevant to child outcome.”6

b) “Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.”7

What is scientific about this peremptory affirmation that the gender of a parent is “immaterial” and “irrelevant” to child formation? The absolutism of this statement shows its lack of scientific character. Science is made of nuances and distinctions, taking circumstances into account.

It is the longstanding consensus of all peoples, confirmed by studies guided by science rather than ideology, that it is ideal for a child’s formation to have a father (man) and a mother (woman).8

Likewise, it is unscientific to brand as a mere stereotype without scientific basis, the showing of concern over diseases that are sexually transmitted and that are common among homosexuals, particularly today, when the HIV-AIDS epidemic still ravages society. Health agencies and even some homosexual activists recognize that reality.

The latest study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of August 2010, titled Projecting Possible Future Courses of the HIV Epidemic in the United States, presents the following picture:

Nearly 30 years into the HIV epidemic, HIV continues to take a heavy toll in the United States. More than 1.1 million people are currently living with HIV, nearly 18,000 people with AIDS still die each year, and lifetime medical care for those who become infected with HIV each year is estimated to cost $20 billion. Gay and bisexual men of all races, African-Americans, Latinos, and injection drug users are most affected.9

Matt Foreman, at the time Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, stated at the 20th National Conference on LGBT, in Detroit, Mich., on Feb. 8, 2008: “Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”10

Equally unscientific is to label as a stereotype the fact that children of lesbians and homosexuals tend to imitate their behavior. The very psychology of learning shows how a child tends to imitate those who raise them, particularly parents.11 Studies abound, some of which even use research by pro-homosexual authors, that show that the children of homosexuals tend to follow in the footsteps of their parents.12

Therefore, one cannot expect that “experts” who are ideological activists for homosexual causes—and who did not behave scientifically when it came to demolishing the gender barrier—will remain scientifically neutral when it comes to overthrowing other barriers such as age, consanguinity or species.

Is it Forbidden to Speak of Sin? The anti-religious and anti-Catholic bias of Judge Walker and his activist experts is patent.

In Finding of Fact no. 77, he concludes: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”13

Among the “evidence” he presents is the document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith titled, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, of June 3, 2003, which reiterates Catholic doctrine in this regard. Judge Walker also cites documents from other religions.

Now then, does following the norms of Catholic morals and defining such relationships as “sinful” harm a sinner? What exactly is this harm? Is it physical, psychological? Will the State now declare Catholic morals to be the cause of neuroses and that it therefore has a duty to suppress them in furtherance of public health?

This is all the more so since Judge Walker appears to consider Christian morals as irrational, saying in his ruling that restricting marriage to the union of a man and a woman, “creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation,”14 and does not have “any rational basis,”15 but is a fruit of “a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.”16

At Stake: the Very Notion of Good and Evil The ongoing homosexual offensive—and Judge Walker’s ruling is its spearhead today—is the latest development of a centuries-long process which has been destroying Christian civilization; a process which Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira called the Revolution. Not a revolution in the military sense of the word, but in a broader sense of the destruction of a legitimate religious and cultural order and its replacement with an illegitimate state of things.

Over the centuries, the focal point of this subversive process was increasingly to destroy the notion of good and evil, sin and virtue.17

In his ruling, Judge Walker defended equality between homosexual and heterosexual marriage and thus between the homosexual and heterosexual act.18 At the same time, he branded criticism of homosexuality as groundless “stereotypes.”19 Going even further, he concluded that a moral classification based on a person’s sexual orientation is “irrational.”20 Hence the conclusion is that he considers the practice of the homosexual act as something good. But that conclusion destroys the very foundation of the natural Law, and thus of the practical reason, based on which, man makes judgments on the uprightness or perversity of an act.21

Religious Persecution The State thus becomes the guarantor of “homosexual morality” in opposition to Christian morality and the Natural Moral Law; and those who abide by traditional Christian morals and the natural moral law, thereby acquire the status of a persecuted class oppressed by the law.

Indeed, the moral law is not something accidental to Religion, particularly Catholicism. It is as important as dogma; for it is the practical norm of how to act according to the Faith.22 Therefore, a negation of the principles of morals is at least an implicit negation of the Faith; for if one is not obliged to obey God in one’s actions, neither is one obliged to obey Him in one’s beliefs. Thus, a Catholic cannot abandon the practice of traditional morals without apostasy from the Faith.

Now then, if the law imposes acceptance of “homosexual morality” it will punish those who, following the dictates of natural Law, continue to affirm that the homosexual act is a grave moral fault and therefore refuse to equate a relationship based on that act (the so-called homosexual “marriage”) with true marriage, that is, a union between a man and a woman.

As a matter of fact, already there are known examples of this persecution both here and in Europe.23

At this critical juncture, instead of taking a passive and conformist attitude, everyone who believes that without true morals life is not worth living must fight with every peaceful and legal means to reverse this situation.

There’s much talk about “persecuted minorities” today. What we are witnessing with the homosexual agenda is the emergence of ultra-organized minorities with powerful allies in the media, the courts and the other two branches of government, who are thus becoming “persecuting minorities.”

God Will Not be Mocked The last decade has seen great advances by the homosexual movement in its efforts to force societal acceptance of the homosexual act. The apostle Saint Paul reminds us though that “God will not be mocked” (Gal. 6:7). Sooner or later, His glory will require that He intervene, righting so many wrongs and putting an end to the public and official exaltation of sin. In Fatima, Our Lady warned mankind of an impending chastisement if it did not turn back to God.

By engaging energetically and effectively, peacefully and legally in this struggle, we can heed the Blessed Mother’s maternal warning, recognize and correct our failings, and rightly be “one nation under God.”

Some gay activists themselves have said that monogamous homosexual marriage is just a transitional phase.

Their goal now is to establish the concept of homosexual marriage in the law. Then, once homosexual marriage is established law, they will move on to group marriage, polygamy, “triads”, and “polyamory”. In these other arrangements, the concept of monogamy will be the next marriage barrier to be broken. Eventually, their goal is to have relationships with any number and any gender of partners.

And it will be “discrimination” if a state or the federal government does not recognize these bizarre relationships as having the same legal status as traditional married couples.

It’s coming.

Twenty years ago, nobody could have predicted that we would have legal homosexual marriage. Imagine the unimaginable, and think ahead twenty years as to what the situation will be then. The seeds are being planted now. Now that the activists have destroyed the assumption that marriage partners are of the opposite sex, future activists will go to court and destroy the assumption that there is anything important about the number 2, as the number of partners in a marriage.

Here are a number of homosexual activists’ reasons for wanting same sex marriage:

From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.

One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”

He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated:“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
http://www.article8.org/docs/general/platform.htm

____________________________________________

Many of those who most vigorously champion same-sex marriage say that they do so precisely in the hope of dethroning once and for all the traditional “conjugal institution.”

That phrase comes from Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York University and a major expert witness testifying in courts and elsewhere for gay marriage. She views the fight for same-sex marriage as the “vanguard site” for rebuilding family forms. The author of journal articles like “Good Riddance to ‘The Family,’” she argues forthrightly that “if we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, there are few limits to the kinds of marriage and kinship patterns people might wish to devise.”

Similarly, David L. Chambers, a law professor at the University of Michigan widely published on family issues, favors gay marriage for itself but also because it would likely “make society receptive to the further evolution of the law.” What kind of evolution? He writes, “If the deeply entrenched paradigm we are challenging is the romantically linked man-woman couple, we should respect the similar claims made against the hegemony of the two-person unit and against the romantic foundations of marriage.”

Examples could be multiplied—the recently deceased Ellen Willis, professor of journalism at NYU and head of its Center for Cultural Reporting and Criticism, expressed the hope that gay marriage would “introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart, further promoting the democratization and secularization of personal and sexual life”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic
les/000/000/013/451noxve.asp

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.