Judge Vaughn Walker ruling is evidence that the homosexuals lives in a disguised condition as an 'adult' psychologically speaking. He declares that marriage is a matter for the State to decide but fails to explain why it has been the condition of one man and one woman for centuries. Why then is polygamy not allowed? The underpinning of state laws or as Pope Leo XIII has stated the 'ordinance of reason' has already drawn its value from Judeo-Christian laws, which is why there are references to God in almost every courtroom in America to this day and even printed on the currency which gives to God or to some super natural entity acting as such the trust of negotiating our fiduciary and economic affairs.
The religions of people, nor their moral values and thus their moral reasoning cannot be expunged on the will and whim of secularists. Who reason towards his personal comfort and satisfactions, who solves for comfort rather than the truth. The supernatural and metaphysical benevolence under the providence of almighty God cannot merely be ignored into dissolution any more than a river dries up simply because there is no one there to watch it flow. To reason thusly is nothing less than the very evidence of a Piagetean psychological immaturity.
Judge Walkers ruling was based on the plaintiff's contention that the Due Process Clause was violated which states that no "State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const Amend XIV. The plaintiffs claim that the freedom to marry the person of one's choice is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and the Proposition 8 violates this fundamental right because:
- It prevents each plaintiff from marrying the person of his or her choice.
- The choice of a marriage partner is sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment from the State's unwarranted usurpation of that choice; and
- California's provision of a domestic partnership --a status giving same -sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage without providing marriage--does not afford plaintiff's an adequate substitute for person of their choice, invidiously discriminates, without justification, against plaintiff's and others who seek to marry a person of the same sex.
The plaintiff's claim of violation of the Equal Protection Clause which states that no State shall "deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" U.S. Const Amend XVI fall under two charges.
- There is discrimination against gay men and lesbians by denying them a right to marry the person of their choice whereas heterosexual men and women may do so freely; and
- Proposition 8 disadvantages a suspect class in preventing only gay men and lesbians, not heterosexuals, from marrying.
There is no violation of the Due Process Clause. No one is after Due Process prevented from marrying the person of their choice however, restrictions are in place to prevent maldeveloped persons or the imposition of individuals who wish to cast an absurdity upon the State. Such cases of the former include the ineligibility of close relatives from marrying because of the burden placed on the state for their care and reduction of eligible candidates for it's sustenance and affairs the state should be disinclined to produce unhealthy off spring. Where the probability of healthy offspring falls below fifty percent the marriage can not be granted by the State. As far as homosexual 'marriages' the probability of healthy offspring is absolutely zero and therefore does not meet State requirements, not for the production or probability of healthy offspring but for the improbability of healthy offspring as would be the case if a man married a goat, which constitutes the latter exception, casting an absurdity upon the State. Thus it is not a permissible legal union as production and development is a fundamental interest of any State although not a mandate of marriage, the State constitutes the population of human beings and has a vested interest in seeing to it that the healthiest human beings are brought forth. More so it must be understood that a rule is not subject to it's exceptions and hypotheticals. Elderly and sterile couples in a heterosexual union still meet the criteria of having the universal potential for procreation as have been born out from the power of God, to Abraham and his wife Sarah who was beyond her years. Barren women such as Hannah and Rebecca in the Bible to whom God has granted a child may have been sterile but through a miracle granted by God were able to produce. Miracles do happen and need to be accredit amongst the exceptions and hypotheticals as well. Although belief in Christianity or Judaism or the Bible is not necessary for understanding this principal, so far as exceptions and hypotheticals are included in the debate these will also suffice for the purpose. It is also worth mentioning that although it is not beyond God's power as described in the Bible (a sacred text which happens to be the most widely published book in human history as well as the first in publication) He would most likely not look favorably on a gay union and subsequently that pair would have little hope.
As far as the Fourteenth Amendment sheltering the States unwarranted usurpation of that marriage it seems fitting that an amendment that was put in place for the protection of disadvantaged African American former slaves and manipulated for profit by greedy merchants to defend their universal or realist corporate bodies by identifying them as persons although they be 'hollow' would be used by this group of plaintiffs. Marriages or as it is known in corporate vernacular merges and acquisitions are scrutinized to make sure that there is no anti-trust violations in order to prevent unfair competition and stifled innovation. So this line of reasoning that discrimination is not applied when it comes to granting unions is false. Thirdly, the States allowance of domestic partnership does not in any way appear to impede on the legal rights of the plaintiffs. The courts cannot redress the issue of social standing or social status, legally the status of domestic partnerships and married couples are equal under the law in the state of California already.
Finally, the courts ought to have found that Proposition 8 does not discriminate against homosexuals in deference to heterosexuals because under the Proposition neither homosexuals or heterosexuals can marry the same sex, subsequently there is no discrimination, all are treated equally.
African American experience, their trials and tribulations in this great country of ours have been tokenized at will by the homosexuals to prove their case. They repeatedly site miscegenation laws that prevent African Americans from marrying Anglo Americans and they recount that when AA where slaves they were considered property and where no allowed to marry. I would like to cite some other tokenism from the AA experience which are apparently missed on the homosexual community . For instance the Jim Crow era like court room in which this case was held, Judge Vaughn Walkeer is reported to be gay himself, having a homosexual Judge who would directly benefit from his own ruling makes his ruling inadmissible. It was akin to the AA man being accused of raping a white woman and having a horse come in and serve as an eye witness, having the horse stomp once for yes and two for no on the courtroom floor. Secondly this idea that the homosexuals have that their marriages would in no way effect the lives of heterosexuals is only indicative of their psychotic illness. It is they that live by the idea that we, an integrated society, are not effected by the actions, lifestyles and behaviors of our neighbors and fellow citizens, this is not true. In this respect they hearken to a separate but equal doctrine which in itself was considered unconstitutional in Brown vs. The Board of Education but they over look this fact.
The evidence makes bare the fact that homosexuality itself is little more than a psychiatric illness. What is more, it only goes to prove how dependant man is on God to reason correctly. Homosexuals are psychotically ill and need to be barred from pivotal positions such as judges. Further the APA (American Psychiatric Association) needs to be sued for abandoning their patients for the whimsical elopement with an unproven theoretical frame work of adaptation rather than the proven psychoanalytic framework by which most of the diagnostic criteria was originally established. Their claim that if 'distress, disability or disadvantage' is not readily observable that person does not have a disorder is fallacious in light of serial killers and sociopaths who do not have dystonic personalities chiefly because they are unconscionable. In fact those disordered people who are 'disturbed' with their maladaptive or abusive behaviors and show it are demonstrating their humanity are in 'jihad' with their negative thoughts and impulses and deserve to be respected for at least being aware that the way they feel and behave is inappropriate. They should not be singled out as 'the crazy ones' while the others roam about blithely undaunted by public opinion and have no fear of God.