Pro same-sex marriage proponents are challenging proposition 8, the controversial and much hated measure banning same-sex marriage in California in court. The case is currently paused while U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker reviews the documents and testimony given to date.
That proponents of same-sex marriage would challenge this vote was pretty much a given. Gay activists have resorted to intimidation, harassment and forms of violence in their quest to shove same-sex marriage down America’s throat. A court challenge comes as no surprise.
What does cause me to raise my eyebrows is reading how plaintiffs frame their argument. They seem to have centered their case on voters voting based upon their religious beliefs.
Let me say here that no one knows why an individual votes as they do, nor should they. That is the essence of the secret ballot, voting based upon our individual values and yes, beliefs. Why we select the cause or candidate we do is flat out no one’s business.
Let me explain a little.
The Baptist Press placed daily summaries of how the case was progressing. In nearly every summary, we read of how religion was responsible for voters approving Proposition 8 and banning same-sex marriage in California.
A Time article quotes longtime conservative litigator Mathew Staver saying, “What has struck me is that the plaintiffs have tried to put Christianity on trial rather than Prop 8.”
Even David Boies, plaintiffs attorney says, “the trial has shown that legal discrimination against gays, in particular rules banning their marriage, starts with simple prejudice, in the form of religion-inspired views about the morality of homosexuality itself.”
Day 8 of the trial saw Chinese Christian Hak-Shing William Tam on the stand that lead to the comment from general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, Andy Pugno,
“For the first time (we believe) ever in a court of law, a proponent of a voter initiative was put on the stand to be interrogated under oath about his own political, moral and religious views. Not only was the Prop 8 supporter forced to reveal his political and religious views under penalty of perjury, but he was further forced to defend and substantiate his views so the court can decide whether his views are improper.”
He continued on to note,
“ Clearly the plaintiffs will go to any lengths, even if it means sacrificing the precious protections of the First Amendment, to achieve their goal of invalidating the vote of the people.”
Almost laughable was Day 12as it was seen “plaintiffs are attempting to argue that the gay community has no reliable political allies and is politically powerless in this country,” in spite of President Barack Obama’s call for ending the so called ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy of the United States Armed Service that bans gays from serving openly in the Military.
If that isn’t a “political ally,” what is?
New Catholic Register quotes attorney Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund saying, “The votes of Christians and other people of faith are without question on trial in California” as it is mentioned that plaintiff’s attorneys presented a “section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Catholic teachings on homosexuality as evidence, presumably implying that these teachings display unconstitutional ‘prejudice and hostility’ toward an allegedly powerless minority.”
Gay activists have long erroneously equated their plight to that of Black during the struggles for Civil Rights in the 1960’s. One of the right denied Blacks in America was the right to vote was the use of literacy tests designed in such a way to ensure Blacks would fail, thereby denying them their right to vote.
Should Gay Activists succeed now, will we see them return and be used to deny Christians their right to vote because it is assumed they vote in accordance with their deep held beliefs that gays disagree with?
Should such a precedent be set, where would it end, if ever?
Oddly enough, while Christians and their deeply held beliefs have been put on trial in San Francisco, left out of the arguments are Muslims who share a deep opposition to homosexuality based upon their religious beliefs.
It’s bad enough that we have to contend with people like Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, teaching that “Paul Was Condemning Homosexual Acts by Heterosexuals” in the book of Romans (1:22 – 27), but trying to throw out votes they don’t like because they assume people voted based upon religious beliefs is abominable.
To take this to its logical conclusion, should the election of Barack Obama be nullified because many feel he was elected solely based upon his skin color?
Of course not!
The First Amendment guarantees each and every American citizen the free practice of religion. Should it be limited if it is felt by the power elite that you might vote in accordance with your beliefs?
Completely missed is that many people oppose same-sex marriage for multiple non-religious reasons. Will the ferret out those reasons to deny a vote by those people now?
This is the dangerous slippery slope many have spoken of for so long. Our right to free beliefs and even a secret vote is being endangered just as it is currently in Washington State with the Supreme Court Case on state sanctioned harassment and intimidation of opponents to same-sex marriage here.
We can no longer afford to remain quiet and hope this all goes away or that judges will follow long established law. Our very liberties are under open assault and if we wish to keep them, we better begin speaking out and making sure we vote according to our beliefs, while we are still allowed to.
One thing I am absolutely certain of, regardless of how Judge Walker rules, this is headed to the United States Supreme Court. Will it be put to rest once and for all?
With the calls from opponents that Judge Walker recuse himself because of his poor handling of the case and being gay himself, you can expect loud calls of Justice’s Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves, leaving a favorable court to hear the case and likely approving same-sex marriage from the bench, as was done with Roe v Wade.