Judge Walker is Gay? Proposition 8 Case Ruling Impartiality in Question

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the judge presiding over the Proposition 8 appeal, Judge Vaughn Walker, is gay:

“The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL#ixzz0exke4PWC

If that is true, it would explain a lot.  Why was Judge Walker so eager to break federal court rules against televising hearings?  Why was he so eager to deny the defense their first amendment rights by trying to force them to disclose private campaign documents?

Twice now, higher courts have had to intervene in Judge Walker’s court proceedings to check his enthusiasm for tipping the scales of justice.

Could Judge Walker being gay himself have any bearing on his decisions?  We’ll never know.  As one commenter on this story said:

“He should have recused himself, just to avoid the image of impropriety. As it is, people will always wonder, and assume he made those bad judgments out of an inappropriate personal bias.”

Certainly a judge’s personal life and choices do not HAVE to interfere with his impartiality, however it certainly does color the appearance of his decision.

History will always question his judgment and wonder.  No matter what side of the issue you fall on, this information does nothing but cast doubt on the legitimacy of this court and its proceedings.

—Beetle Blogger

I Am A Mother. A Tale of Two Views

I Am A Mother.

As I was reading through NOM blog today, I came across these two posts by women on opposite ends of the marriage debate.  Their heartfelt takes on marriage and what it means really impressed me.  In particular, they are both powerful, emotional statements, yet worlds apart in focus:

“I am a citizen, who desires nothing more than any other citizen. I want children for the exact same reasons any heterosexual does. I want to be married for the exact same reasons any heterosexual does.

I can’t change who I am, or who I fall in love with any more than you can, and I should just accept I’ll never have the same thing as my sister or brother, who are heterosexual?

And because of people like you, my partner and I will probably have a harder time raising our son than you would your children.

The only reason a child would think any less of his or her family would be because people like you do.

Good night, and I really hope none of your children are gay. If they are, make sure and tell them early on why they shouldn’t ever be able to marry. It’ll be easier on them in the long-run.”  —Marci

“Marci,

When I dated, I chose who I made relationships with. I chose who I would live my life with. No one took those choices from me. Because of my choices, my children will have a mom and a dad, and I will work every day to make sure it stays that way because my children need a mom and a dad. I would never deny a child what they are entitled to simply because of my own selfish wants and desires. Children have rights too, rights that can’t be denied simply because they don’t fit a certain parent’s sexual desires. I am prepared to teach my children by example what a family is, and You can bet I will make sure that they know, if they are not prepared to give a child the things they need in life, they ought not be bringing those children into the world. I am a mom, and because I’m a mom, the needs of my children surpass my petty wants. That is a sacrifice I’m willing to make a thousand times over, and one we should comit to as a society. Every child needs a mom and a dad. Death and divorce aside, we should do everything we can to give them the best chance possible to have that in their lives.”  —Sandee

I thought the response to Marci’s letter was singularly powerful.  One letter focused on the writer, what the writer wanted, what the writer felt, and children were an accessory to that.  The other writer’s focus is on her family, her children and what makes a family.

Two mothers. Two world views.

The first takes no responsibility, the second is the embodiment of responsibility.

It was a poignant example of the very basis of disagreement in the marriage debate, excellently articulated by two of society’s mothers.

—Beetle Blogger

Nothing is Inevitable.

“I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.”

–William Ernest Henley

One of the most common things I’ve heard in the marriage debates here and elsewhere is the thought that gay marriage is the future, it is inevitable, it is unavoidable and those who disagree are going to find themselves “on the wrong side of history”.

As we look back on the massive wins of Proposition 8 in California, Question 1 in Maine, and the ripple effect those wins had in New York and now in New Jersey, it’s quite obvious that “inevitability” is what we make of it.

I read today on Maggie Gallagher’s site:

Maggie’s Top Eight Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Not Inevitable

1. Nothing is inevitable.

2. Young people are not as unanimous as most people think.

In California, the young-adults vote split 55 percent to 45 percent. Is it so hard to imagine 5 percent of those young people changing their minds as they move through the life cycle?

3. The argument from despair is bait and switch.

They are trying push the idea that gay marriage is inevitable, because they are losing the argument that gay marriage is a good idea.

4.  Progressives are often wrong about the future.

Progressives told me abortion would be a dead issue by today, because young people in 1975 were so pro-choice. They told me there would be no more homemakers at all by the year 2000, because of the attitudes and values of young women in 1975. Some even told me the Soviet Union was the wave of the future. …

5.  Demography could be destiny.

Traditionalists have more children. …Religous groups are increasingly focused on the problem of how to transmit a marriage culture to the next generation (see the USCCB’s recent initiatives).

6. Change is inevitable.

Generational arguments tend to work only for one generation: Right now, it’s “cool” to be pro-gay marriage. In ten years, it will be what the old folks think. Even gay people may decide, as they get used to living in a tolerant and free America, they don’t want to waste all that time and energy on a symbolic social issue, anyway. …Inevitability is a manufactured narrative, not a fundamental truth.

7. Newsflash: 18-year-olds can be wrong.

Should we really say “Hmm, whatever the 18-year-olds think, that must be inevitable,” and go do that? I mean, would we reason like that on any other issue?

8. New York’s highest court was right.

From Hernandez v. Robles:
“The dissenters assert confidently that ‘future generations’ will agree with their view of this case (dissenting op at 396). We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives. …”

The first and the last on the list are my favorite.  As Benjamin Franklin said, “He that waits upon fortune is never sure of a dinner.”  Nothing is inevitable.  Everyone gets the chance, and the responsibility to choose.

—Beetle Blogger

Walker Reversed, Boies and Olson Legal Witch-hunt Stymied

Photo: Judge Walker’s Brand of Justice?

Good News!

The Prop 8 campaign is getting a break. Judge Vaughn Walker’s order that all private emails and campaign communications be turned over to the opposition for scrutiny by the tolerance police is being reversed.  Law.com is reporting that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed Judge Walker’s outrageous order saying that the campaign had made a “strong showing” that it would succeed on the merits of the discovery issue.

Ted Olson and David Boies, lawyers in the federal challenge to Proposition 8 , claim that Prop 8 violates the federal constitution, and want to find evidence that the Prop 8 backers were motivated by anti-gay animus.

They’ll of course find nothing, but that was never the point.  The point is: they shouldn’t even be allowed to look. It is none of their business!

The intent of the judge’s order was to intimidate and harass those who support the campaign today and in future campaigns who dare support the natural family.   That order was in direct conflict with the 8 Campaign’s First Amendment rights.

“Whether you like it or not” boys, that kind of roughshod intimidation doesn’t fly in a real court.

Judge Walker should be ashamed of himself for the petty nature of the order he put out in the first place.  It’s no surprise he’s being reversed, and by Clinton appointees no less!  Walker and his judicial activism had it coming.

No matter personal animus, Justice should always be blind.

—Beetle Blogger

File this under “Yep They Said It!”

The National Organization for Marriage facebook page and supporters were attacked with racial epithets by none other than the tolerance police of the left.  After being thoroughly shamed, the offending posters actually removed their own posts, but before they could bury the evidence, I was able to get some illustrative screen shots:

This is James “Equality” Troia and sidekick Ron Bachar, representing the face of tolerance in the gay movement:

So there it is!  Yep!  They said it!

The interesting thing to me is that this came after four threads of trolls comparing NOM to the KKK…. from a group of activists that claim they are the face of the new civil rights movement!

Irony bites doesn’t it?

—Beetle Blogger

Newspaper Purges Reporter AND WIFE From Payroll After Gay Activists Complain About Reporter’s Pro-Family Opinions

Photo: Norman Rockwell 1943

“A Maine reporter is combating his termination after he says he was fired from his job for issuing a personal email rebutting a homosexualist group’s defamation of true marriage advocates.

Fed up with the accusations of “hate” leveled at marriage advocates throughout the campaign, Grard says he wrote an email from his personal email account to Thomas that read: “Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd.  You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began.  Good riddance!”  –Lifesite News

WOW.  Now that’s hateful right?  And they not only fired this guy for this personal email where he gave his personal opinions, they fired his wife too! Now that’s classy!

Some in the gay lobby are trying to distance themselves from this blatant effort to punish family supporters for their views on marriage.  They say, “Oh you can’t blame gay activists for this!  It’s the paper’s blunder!”

I say, the gay activists are exactly who are to blame for this. They’re the ones supporting policies that encourage treatment of any other opinion but their own as homophobia or bigoted bias. This is a clear example of what we fought against in California. I saw the same things coming up in Maine and now in DC. It’s the paper’s fault yes, they stepped in it, but the ideas behind what they did are being promoted in campaigns supported by the gay lobby.

This is exactly what freedom of speech is about.  It’s about being free.

Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination, once you declare that these people — whoever they may be — must at all costs not be offended, then you have destroyed one of the essential elements of free speech and political debate. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to force their neighbor to be silent if his opinions offend them. If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America..…wherever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified.”  —Robert Spencer

A friend of mine posted this information:

I just left a message on the Editor’s voice mail. Will follow up with an email tomorrow. What do you say we make this a national story, folks? Let’s start by calling the newspaper and letting the editor know what we think of reporters being fired for expressing their private opinions in private emails!

To contact Maine Today Media:
Editor Bill Thompson: bthompson@mainetoday.com
Morning Sentinel main line: 207-873-3341…

We have to stand up and stick together to support our freedoms.  This man and his wife are being wrongfully persecuted for his beliefs.  He wasn’t rude, or improper in any way.  He simply had a difference of opinion and that could not be tolerated.

This is the road we’re heading down if gay activists get their way. Fight it wherever you see it.

—Beetle Blogger

Read the entire story, get mad, and then do something about it:

Maine Reporter Fired for Personal E-mail Rebutting Criticisms of Traditional Marriage Supporters

Follow-up:  Maine Reporter: I Was Fired Over Anti-Same-Sex Marriage E-mail

“Voice of the Nation” —Marriage Victories Ripple Through New York and Beyond

Join Heather and Angela for

Voice of the Nation

Family Values Blog Talk Radio

sandstrom_rockwood

On Thursday– This week on “Voice of the Nation” We will be talking about the great success yesterday in New York and the ripple effect recent marriage victories had there.  Join us as we talk with Scott Loveless about protecting marriage and family as we move forward from the big wins in Maine and New York to the coming fight in New Jersey.

Guest: Scott Loveless – Scott Loveless served eight years as the Executive Director of the World Family Policy Center at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University.  He initially practiced law for 20 years with the U.S. Department of the Interior, focusing on issues affecting environmental concerns:  water law, environmental law, public land law, and mining and mineral leasing law.  However, he pursued a Ph.D. in Family Studies (BYU 2000) after having observed the adverse consequences of divorce within his circle of acquaintances while living in the Washington, D.C. area. His dissertation sought to understand the human-relational effects of personal philosophies of happiness on the marriage relationship.  He has continued to write and publish on related themes, most recently in the 3-volume set, The Family in the New Millenium  (Praeger), on which he served as lead editor.  His current primary professional interests (and reason for joining UFI) are in the moral/philosophical origins of human rights law, current moral tensions in human rights law at the UN and elsewhere, and the consequences for societies and families of the different possible resolutions of those tensions.  Scott and Cheri, his wife of 35 years, are the grateful parents of 3 sons and 5 daughters and have 8 grandchildren.

TUNE IN HERE

The Family Values Blog Talk Radio show is a joint effort between United Families International, the Digital Network Army, and other Pro-Family organizations in highlighting current issues facing families in the Pro-Family Movement.

Call in to VOICE OF THE NATION every Thursday at 2pm PST.  The call-in number is

347- 215-6801

What is Marriage? Rift in Gay Marriage Effort Widens

See this from ProtectMarriage.com
Dear Friends,

I have previously shared reports of a rift within the same-sex marriage movement about whether to press ahead to attempt to invalidate Prop 8 by initiative in 2010, or to push off the effort to 2012 or later. This week, the chasm between the two camps reached a noteworthy summit: one of California’s largest LGBT grassroots groups (they claim 700,000 supporters), the Courage Campaign, announced the withdrawal of its support for a 2010 fight.

After the Courage Campaign spent a reported $200,000 on voter research, its founder, Rick Jacobs, told the San Francisco Chronicle, “We do not see a path to victory.”

This is significant news because last May the Courage Campaign was one of the first same-sex marriage advocacy groups to sponsor the 2010 initiative effort. It seems that the decisive victories for traditional marriage in California and Maine, the election of pro-marriage governors in New Jersey and Virginia and a pro-marriage Democrat Congressional candidate in New York have homosexual marriage advocates heading back to the drawing board.
In a press release issued this week, Courage Campaign’s Jacobs said:

“We are taking the lessons learned from last year’s Prop. 8 campaign, the campaigns in Maine and other states to understand the fundamental work that must be done before moving forward in California. We also must come together as a community to create a broad coalition and governance structure, put in place a strong manager and secure the resources to win. Right now, the pieces are not all in place to do so confidently.”

That leaves a coalition of small gay rights groups, with Love Honor Cherish as its leading proponent, behind the effort to repeal Prop 8 in 2010. California’s largest LGBT organization, Equality California, will continue to focus efforts on the re-launch of Let California Ring, its multi-year, multimillion dollar educational campaign which also aims to abolish Prop 8, but not until 2012.

While our opponent’s path to an electoral victory has been significantly – if not fatally – damaged by this week’s news, we continue our strategic work on the legal front. The federal lawsuit challenging the validity of Prop 8 is scheduled to go to trial in early January. And yesterday in Pasadena, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal heard our objections to recent orders to disclose internal campaign documents to opposing counsel.

We are literally working day and night to protect traditional marriage, and we appreciate your support to help us continue this critical fight.

Thank you for standing with us to protect the institution of marriage for this and future generations.

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice
Executive Director

You can donate to the Prop 8 defense fund at:
https://www.completecampaigns.com/FR/contribute.asp?campaignid=Prop8Legal

Long Fought Victory in New York!

New York Soundly Defeats Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Congratulations New York on voting down the gay marriage initiative!  This vote is a win for families, kids and freedom.

Rev. Jason J. McGuire, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, said, “Today’s vote results from the efforts made by a bipartisan, multiracial alliance united in support of the proposition that marriage is not just about adult satisfaction or the whims of a special interest group—it’s about kids. The bottom line is that children do best when raised by their biological mother and father. This bill would have encouraged and promoted the deliberate formation of households that deprive children of either a mom or a dad.”

“It is gratifying to see that so many senators from both parties are listening to their constituents and taking heed to the many objections that have been raised regarding this bill. The legislation placed freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in jeopardy.  New Yorkers’ voices were heard today.”  –New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms

Today, New York joins the ranks of states who have rejected gay marriage.  Not only was it rejected, but it was rejected by a far larger margin than anyone had hoped to anticipate.

“I think you put it all together and it most likely spells the end of the idea that you can pass gay marriage democratically anywhere else in the United States,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which spearheaded opposition in Albany. “I think the gay marriage lobby will have to go back to a court-based approach.

“We did believe they were short at least five votes, but we did not expect to win by 14 votes.”

NY Governor David Paterson has been pushing since early last year for this vote.  New Yorkers didn’t take it lying down, they got to the streets to rally pro marriage forces by the thousands.  They rallied, they fasted and they prayed.  I prayed too.

Thank you for the victory tonight in New York!  It was a long time coming.

—Beetle Blogger

See this more in depth account of what went down today from the Baptist Press:

N.Y. Senate debates religion, defeats ‘gay marriage’ bill

ALBANY, N.Y. (BP)–In a lengthy debate Wednesday that often focused more on theology than politics, the New York Senate defeated a “gay marriage” bill 38-24, handing homosexual activists another stinging defeat in the liberal Northeast.

The bill had breezed through the Assembly 86-51 the previous night and Democratic Gov. David A. Paterson had pledged to sign it, putting all eyes on the Senate, where Democrats have a two-vote majority. But after an impassioned two-hour debate that even saw a few legislators shed tears, the bill fell far short of the required 32 votes, preventing the nation’s third most populous state from redefining marriage.

It is the third significant recent defeat in the Northeast for “gay marriage” supporters, who on Election Day saw Maine vote to prohibit such relationships and New Jersey replace a governor who supports “gay marriage” with one who opposes it. The defeat could have ramifications in New Jersey, where homosexual activists are pushing for a vote on a bill there before lame duck Gov. Jon Corzine leaves office Jan. 19.

full article here

Gay Activists Pile the Hard Spin On Catholic Charities in D.C. to Cover Their Own Intolerance

huffington_post_catholic_smear

Realms of Inexplicable Evil

The Huffington Post today berated the Catholic Church as an ‘Inexplicably Evil Organization’. Why? Because it will soon be forced to stop providing services to the poor, homeless and needy on D.C.’s streets if same sex marriage legislation is passed.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if same-sex marriage as it was currently worded, was passed.

The reaction?  Fix the law!  Provide religious protections!  Reject the normalization of homosexuality right?  No Sir, the spin is all on Catholic Charities for scrooging the poor out of spite.   See this from the Venerable Huffington Post:

“Yup, that’s right. If gay folk can marry, the Catholic church refuses to feed the homeless….Beyond being simply mean and intolerant, this is just a stupid strategy for the Catholic church to employ. It may be a symbol of religion, but the church is also a business that needs to expand its customer base, or it will become extinct like Greek polytheism or New Coke.” —Allison Kilkenny, Huffington Post

Yet unlike the characterization so eagerly given, the Catholic Church is not moving out of spite or political maneuver.  It’s a legal reality.  A legal reality, I might add, that was predicted was going to be a necessity if gay marriage was passed.

  • The issue came up in California during prop 8, and gay activists said:  “NO!  That would never happen.  You guys are fear mongering!”
  • The issue came up in Maine during Question 1, and gay activists said: “Lies!  Churches are exempt!  There are religious protections!”
  • The issue came up in Massachusetts and when no one stood to defend marriage laws, Catholic Charities, a public fixture for 100 years, was forced to close its doors.

Now we come to Washington D.C. and what are the gay activists saying now?

intolerance_disinformation

Not only are they forcing Catholic charity groups out of D.C., but they’re BLAMING the the Catholics for it!

“What ever happen to loving all of God’s creatures? I hope (and pray) they will see how unfair it would be to strip the needy of it’s services in an effort to stop gay marriage.  I was raised Catholic and was raised to be a compassionate Catholic and this action by the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is beyond non-compassionate.” —TakePart.com

Unbelievable!  The D.C. City Council was warned by legal experts that the same sex marriage legislation they were considering lacked adequate protection for religious freedom. Rather than heeding these concerns the D.C. City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary actually made the accommodations for religious freedom even more narrow than had been previously proposed.

A statement from the Archdiocese of Washington responded:

As a result, religious organizations and individuals are at risk of legal action for refusing to promote and support same-sex marriages in a host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs. This includes employee benefits, adoption services and even the use of a church hall for non-wedding events for same-sex married couples. Religious organizations such as Catholic Charities could be denied licenses or certification by the government, denied the right to offer adoption and foster care services, or no longer be able to partner with the city to provide social services for the needy.

“It is our concern that the committee’s narrowing of the religious exemption language will cause the government to discontinue our long partnership with them and open up the agency to litigation and the use of resources to defend our religious beliefs rather than serve the poor,” said Edward Orzechowski, president/CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington. Catholic Charities serves 68,000 people in the city each year. The city’s 40 Catholic parishes operate another 93 social service programs to provide crucial services.

The Washington Post characterizes this as the Church giving the city an ultimatum, but we’re not talking ultimatums here.  We’re talking realities.

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. explained that it is the city that is giving the ultimatum.

“We are not threatening to walk out of the city,” Gibbs said. “The city is the one saying, ‘If you want to continue partnering with the city, then you cannot follow your faith teachings.’ “

Catholic Charities has served the D.C. poor for years.  Their services are needed.  Why the hard line?  The intolerance for religious belief? Why the hard spin?  Isn’t the whole reason we’re told gay couples want to marry is so they can be included?  Why push Catholic Charities out?

Bottom line: In the culture war, the progressive movement is about replacement, not inclusion.  It’s about winning no matter what the cost to freedom or humanity—and that is what is inexplicably evil.

—Beetle Blogger

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.