Prop. 8 judge to religious believers: "It's not about you"

[abelisle]

Here's a copy of the whole ruling:

Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

What's your opinion?

Alex

[Neil D]

I have a bit of a spiritual conundrum in my head.....

I like marriage...even though mine failed, I still would like to be married some day to a wonderful older woman....I imagine all sorts of pleasant outcomes from this imagined married, and these imagined situation come from my past experience with marriage, and those of my peers who have been kind enough to share with me their experiences that they have enjoyed. There are plenty of others who have advocated marriage, and living together...some lifestyles I would consider bizarre at best.....And while I have rejected those bizarre 'normal' lifestyles, I do so because I do try to live according to biblical principles....

The principle that says "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" comes to mind...As I reason this principle out, I come to the conclusion that marriage is something that most would consider a good thing to try. After all, even I did at one time. It provides for a deeper fulfillment, a (spiritual) happiness that otherwise is not achievable alone...

Now, the gay community has advanced the principles of marriage into my society...I consider this one of the 'bizarre' lifestyles that I have alluded to. While marriage provides great happiness (according to some), it is denied to these types of individuals...

If I follow the dictates of my biblical NT principles, I should not deny marriage/happiness to same sex individuals...After all, it is a deeper fulfillment that is otherwise not achievable alone....

[phkrause]

Very interesting response Neil. I agree with you. I personally don't condone it, we know from the Bible its sin. Doesn't Jesus say to hate the sin but love the sinner? Not sure how this is going to turn out but its diffently getting closer to the end of time.

[Dr. Shane]

Marriage is not denied to gay people. John317 is gay and he is married. I do not know of any state that has banned gays from getting married.

I heard the judge that ruled in this matter is himself gay. Hmmmm. Would that be a conflict of interest? If true, should he have recused himself from the case?

Nonetheless, this wasn't a surprise ruling from a liberal, California judge. It will move up to a Court of Appeals and eventually to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision, there will most certainly be a national movement for an amendment to the federal Constitution.

[Bravus]

*Does* Jesus say to hate the sin but love the sinner? I hear it bandied around a lot but can't recall a direct quote.

[doug yowell]

I have a bit of a spiritual conundrum in my head.....

I like marriage...even though mine failed, I still would like to be married some day to a wonderful older woman....I imagine all sorts of pleasant outcomes from this imagined married, and these imagined situation come from my past experience with marriage, and those of my peers who have been kind enough to share with me their experiences that they have enjoyed. There are plenty of others who have advocated marriage, and living together...some lifestyles I would consider bizarre at best.....And while I have rejected those bizarre 'normal' lifestyles, I do so because I do try to live according to biblical principles....

The principle that says "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" comes to mind...As I reason this principle out, I come to the conclusion that marriage is something that most would consider a good thing to try. After all, even I did at one time. It provides for a deeper fulfillment, a (spiritual) happiness that otherwise is not achievable alone...

Now, the gay community has advanced the principles of marriage into my society...I consider this one of the 'bizarre' lifestyles that I have alluded to. While marriage provides great happiness (according to some), it is denied to these types of individuals...

If I follow the dictates of my biblical NT principles, I should not deny marriage/happiness to same sex individuals...After all, it is a deeper fulfillment that is otherwise not achievable alone....

So let me see how this NT principle works out.The NT condemns homosexuality as unnatural, a behaviour that indicates a person's being given up by God, and a behaviour that forfeits one's right to eternal life. The NT portrays marriage as the relationship that mirrors the desired spiritual relationship that God wants with humanity.So now if we apply NT principles to today's situation where not one but two people living together in a practice that is condemned by the NT,it will result in a deeper spiritual fulfillment and a happiness which cannot be achieved by practicing this abomination alone??? Are you sure you've thought this thing thru,Neil?

[Neil D]

So let me see how this NT principle works out.The NT condemns homosexuality as unnatural, a behaviour that indicates a person's being given up by God, and a behaviour that forfeits one's right to eternal life.

[cardw]

What is interesting is that, by far, divorce is more destructive to the family than gay marriage. And yet, even though adultery is one of the 10 commandments, there is hardly a peep about making divorce illegal in this country.

This is because Christians are divorcing at the same rate as non-Christians. This is why I have absolutely no respect for the institution of Christianity today. The hypocrisy is so rampant that the view of Christians being moral is a joke.

And the response to this is that the world is doing the same thing. As long Christianity refuses to take responsibility for its own corruption and hypocrisy it's going to be a hard sell that it has the truth.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane asks a valid question:

Quote:

I heard the judge that ruled in this matter is himself gay. Hmmmm. Would that be a conflict of interest? If true, should he have recused himself from the case?

It is true that the judge who made the ruling is himself a hososexual. That fact is well known and has been known for years. It is not something that jsut came to light wiht this case.

However, if one would say that the judge should automaticly have recused himself because he is gay, one would also need to say that a heterosexual judge should also recuse himself. That would lead not one able to judge the case.

At this point, recusal would need to be on the basis of demonstrated bias.

It should be noted that neither side in the case requeted that the judge recuse himself. By failing to ask for recusal, the opportunity to do so on the basis that the judge is gay is gone. Both sides accepted the judge, so to speak.

It should be noted that when the jud[ge was appointed to the bench the gay community in SF adamately opposed his appointment because they claimed that he was antigay as demonstrated by previous legal activities.

[Gregory Matthews]

Just a comment on legal issues:

The Appelate Court does not generally reverse the Findings of Fact as determined by the District Court. The function of the Appelate Court is to review the District Court determination of the law as to whether or not the District Court was correct in its determination of the law.

From this perspective, the District Court's Findings of Fact are of critical importance. It is also of major importance to note that the District Court essentially determined that those in favor of Prop. 8 totally failed in their efforts to establish any rational basis for their clains to include essentially finding that the credibility of their two witnesses was unfounded. IOW, the proponents of Prop. 8 failed to support in any way their objectives. Actually their two witnesses on redirect lent some support to those against Prop. 8. Me speaking: That is a total failure to prepare your witnesses to go to trail!

[Dr. Shane]

In general, it is always hard to get a lower court or judge's decision reversed. On hot political issues such trends are not a good predictor of what may happen.

On the issue of the judge recusing himself, I tend to think he should have only acused himself if he was or had been part of a gay marriage himself. If he has never been married to another man, I see no conflict. But that is my opinion. The case can certainly be made that there is indeed a conflict. Others can make the case that there is no conflict.

The judge did not determine that there was no rational basis for the law. What he wrote was that apart from morality, there was no rational basis for the law. The questions than become (1) is morality itself a rational basis for the law, and (2) does the federal Constitution require laws to have a rational basis.

[Dr. Shane]

*Does* Jesus say to hate the sin but love the sinner? I hear it bandied around a lot but can't recall a direct quote.

Jesus loved the woman at the well. How did that conversation go?

[shelly]

I believe in religious freedom-and this just does not include mine. If a gay couple wants to marry why should I try to force my views on them and prevent such a union. Not allowing them to marrt does not make them any less gay or change their lifestyle. They will practice homosexuality with or without a legal union.

[Dr. Shane]

I believe in religious freedom-and this just does not include mine.

Then you should be very concerned about gay marriage laws. These laws are a threat to religious liberty. One of the only reasons I oppose gay marriage laws is because of my concern for religious liberty. I really don't care about which sexual perversions two consenting adults engage in.

[Dr. Shane]

a judge in Divorce procedings should not be married or divorced, could be binsed/conflicted either way.

A judge in a divorce proceeding is not ruling on the constitutionality of divorce laws. He or she is simply applying divorce law to the case in front of him or her. If he or she was ruling on the constitutionality of a divorce law that would impact them personally, then they should recuse themselves.

A better example is a judge that belongs to a split-off sect of Mormons which believes in polygamy ruling on the constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws.

[Dr. Shane]

Liberty Magazine: A Clash of Rights

Quote:

“If past rulings are any guide, it is religious rights that are likely to be ‘obliterated’ by an emerging popular majority supporting same-sex relationships—and it seems unlikely that the California courts will intervene. That’s a shame.”

Reasonable people may disagree about how the conflict of rights should be resolved in specific cases, but the existence of the conflict between gay rights and religious freedom is undeniable. In fact, it is likely to be the main event in religious freedom jurisprudence for the foreseeable future.

[jasd]

>>??Sooo, a judge in Divorce procedings should not be married or divorced, could be biased/conflicted either way. Should be a never married judge. Wait a minute, that could make the person biased/conflicted against marriage or maybe, that word again, Gay, in which case can not sit either because of bias/conflict.<<

“Married or divorced” is well-established in case law and requires no recusal on the part of any judge. The matter of homosexual marriage has neither precedent nor case law. Big difference.

There should definitely have been recusal in this matter. Justice is, ideally, served with blinders on her eyes – metaphorically speaking, as the appearance of ‘shopping’ for an ‘activist’ judge is extremely prejudicial.

From this judge’s court to the [most liberal] Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, thence, to the Supreme Court with the two new Justices confirmed by the Obama Congress – well, it’s a fait accompli – that America, as you and I have known her, is forever changed. Dramatically!—and, let me add, detrimentally so...

The above stated..., homosexual marriage will soon be relegated to insignificance – compared to what will shortly overtake this country.

So, “What! me worry?” Well, yes and no.

Incidentally, the greater issue re the California boondoggle is: the will of seven million citizens of the State of California in legally ‘amending’ its constitution – was aborted by an extremely [relatively] small group of activists – together with their ‘shopped’ judge.

Legislating is being done, more and more – from the bench. Not good.

[Gregory Matthews]

Why should the judge recuse himself? Neither of the parties kobjected to him serving s judge and neither requested that he recuse himself. If neither party raises the issue, why should the judge recuse himself?

[shelly]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I support gay marriage because the only reason to oppose it is because of my religious beliefs. If I believe in religious liberty it extends both ways-those who do not believe the same way I do should be able to practice their beliefs so long as it does not limit my freedoms. Whether gays marry has nothing to do with my ability to practice my chrisitianity.

[Dr. Shane]

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Whether gays marry has nothing to do with my ability to practice my chrisitianity.

Neither does it affect your ability to practice christianity if someone commits adultery, covets, kills, or anything else not directly impacting you.

[shelly]

Except for killing someone (which would affect my since of safety and violate the victims civil rights) individuals in this country have the right to do all of those examples you listed. We are talking separation of church and state, not morality. Taking church out of the equation there is no reason to not let gays marry.

[Dr. Shane]

Gay marriage isn't the same as racism.

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006) rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:

“The historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism’s worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.”

[bonnie]

Except for killing someone (which would affect my since of safety and violate the victims civil rights) individuals in this country have the right to do all of those examples you listed. We are talking separation of church and state, not morality. Taking church out of the equation there is no reason to not let gays marry.

Two of my best friends are a lesbian couple. They are not religious in any way.They do not believe gays should be able to marry or to raise children.

They have long ago settled all legal matters thru wills and see no other reason for a marriage as marriage is defined

[GreatLakesGramma]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I support gay marriage because the only reason to oppose it is because of my religious beliefs. If I believe in religious liberty it extends both ways-those who do not believe the same way I do should be able to practice their beliefs so long as it does not limit my freedoms. Whether gays marry has nothing to do with my ability to practice my chrisitianity.

Don't think that gay marriage laws will be the end of it. In states where it is legal for gays to marry, people with religious convictions against homosexual activity have been prosecuted and convicted of discrimination for refusing to photograph gay weddings or rent a hall for a gay wedding or reception. I'd imagine you could also be jailed for refusing to rent out a house to a gay couple, and a Christian employer most certainly will be in violation of the law if he/she refuses to provided benefits for a gay spouse on religious grounds.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it will be illegal to express your conviction that same-gender sexual activity is wrong, either verbally, or in writing, even in private. I've heard that it already is in Canada. Next, they will probably ban the Bible because it condemns homosexual practise.