Photo: Norman Rockwell–Freedom of Worship
Religion, Family, Democracy— On Trial
The endless parade has come to a halt. Painfully, yet colorfully, we’ve all watched the emotional train wreck unfold over these last several weeks. Here and there bits of sanity reigned, but by and large raw, pity driven emotion ran the day.
Thankfully all binge parties must have an end and this one is no exception. Finally, Judge Vaughn Walker’s courtroom theatrics and baldface shenanigans have come to a close. All that remains are 30 days of preparation, the final arguments and the ruling.
No matter which way Judge Walker rules, his feckless reign will not ultimately hold sway. The fate of proposition 8 will end up in the hands of the United States Supreme Court; a judicial body, I might add, in which I have infinitely more faith.
Is there any question how Judge Walker will rule? He’s made his bias clear every chance he got. The better question is, what will the Supreme Court think of his antics? Somehow I don’t imagine they will look kindly on the abuse and mockery Judge Walker has made of the judicial system, thumbing his nose at basic freedoms, federal judicial practice and common decency. He may have won small points with the Oprah crowd, but the Supreme Court is not populated by Jerry Springer and Judge Judy. These are men and women who know the constitution, and the intent of its creators to protect the rights and liberties of all men with regard to personal belief:
“That religion, and the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity, towards each other.” —James Madison, Virginia Declaration
The bottom line is no one has the right to put religion, family or democracy on trial. These are freedoms and rights that are truly inalienable. All men are equal. No spurious claim to special rights can supersede the rights we all share in common.
See this from Ron Prentice, the executive director of protectmarriage.com.
Today concluded the presentation of evidence in the federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging Prop 8’s definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. Our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a remarkable job in defending the will of over 7 million California voters who passed it into law.What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional
marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best. The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose. A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a
mother and father. It’s that simple.The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals. But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal
support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.