GAY TRUTH

Image via Wikipedia Yesterday's ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was truly astonishing: Proposition 8—and by implication the marriage laws at the federal level and in 43 states—is unconstitutional. Even while pretending their ruling was a “narrow” decision, these judges effectively decreed themselves to be the supreme overlords of the people, invalidating the votes of over 7 million Californians and declaring that they, the vaunted elite in black robes and cloaked with lifetime tenure, will decide what marriage means in California and the nation. I don't know about you but my blood is boiling! Not only must our founding fathers be rolling over in their graves with the preposterous notion that marriage is unconstitutional, but the ruling is an affront to the millions of Americans—the vast majority of the nation—who recognize that man does not have the right to redefine marriage. After all, how can federal judges redefine something that man didn

Image via Wikipedia SAN FRANCISO , CA, February 7, 2012, ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – This morning, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled by a 2-1 vote that a California constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is  unconstitutional . In an 89-page ruling that cited William Shakespeare and Marilyn Monroe , Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote , “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.” In 2008, California voters approved the state constitutional amendment defending marriage by a margin of  52.5 percent to 47.5 percent . U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker , who is in a long-term homosexual relationship,  ruled  in August 2010 that the measure “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an

Image via Wikipedia After the judge who struck down California ’s traditional marriage amendment last August confirmed a long-standing sexual relationship with another man earlier this month, pro-family backers have called for the ruling to be thrown out as clearly biased. Protect Marriage, the coalition defending California’s Proposition 8 , had at first remained silent when Justice Vaughn Walker on April 6 confirmed strong rumors that he was in a homosexual relationship.  Walker, who presided over the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before retiring last February, said he never considered recusing himself from the case in which he ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional for defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He called it a “slippery slope” to consider a judge’s sexuality a possible source of conflict of interest. Walker had refused to confirm or deny the rumors of his relationship while the Prop. 8 case was ongoing. Pro-family constitutional at

Image via Wikipedia Among advocates of homosexual "marriage," one of the more popular statements from Judge Walker's ruling overturning Proposition 8 is that the state is obligated to "treat its citizens equally, not to 'mandate its own moral code ."   However  philosopher Dr. Edward Feser points out that Walker's ruling also imposes its own moral code--merely one contrary to Christian belief .   He also calls on conservatives to begin defending the whole spectrum of traditional sexual morality in the public sphere. LSN:  Judge Vaughn Walker argues that banning homosexual "marriage" causes the state to impose the religious views of the many on the few, while permitting homosexual "marriage" preserves the state as a morally neutral agent.  Because he thinks the state ought to be a morally neutral agent, he concludes that homosexual marriage ought to be allowed.  Is this argument valid?  Why or why not? Dr. Feser:  The problem with W