Prop 8 Judge Attacks Churches |

Blog Home » Religious Freedom » Prop 8 Judge Attacks Churches

Prop 8 Judge Attacks Churches

Posted onAugust 9th, 2010 Religious Freedom | 27 Comments »

How does a federal judge striking down California’s voter-approved constitutional provision limiting marriage to one man and one woman affect your church? By essentially saying that if your church teaches what the Bible says about homosexual behavior, it is a group of irrational bigots.

At trial, the plaintiffs in the case strenuously argued that many of the Californians who supported Proposition 8′s preservation of marriage did so because churches like the Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists specifically teach homosexual behavior is harmful to those who practice it, and to society as a whole. The judge accepted that argument as evidence that Californians’ religious convictions make their desire to protect marriage irrational and the law that resulted from those convictions illegal.

If believing what the Word of God says about homosexual conduct is irrational, we’re just one step away from courts holding sermons articulating that belief are not protected speech at all. And if orthodox teaching on sexuality is irrational hate speech, what’s next? It’s likely to be biblical teachings such as creation, proper discipline of children, and Christ’s position as the only path to the Father.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is alarming because a government official – federal Judge Walker - determined the religious beliefs of a majority of Americans are irrational and harmful. He said, “Religious beliefs that gay relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” This government hostility toward particular religious beliefs is just a precursor to government attempts to coerce people to change those beliefs. We’re already seeing that in our military, educational system, and places of work. We would be naive to think they won’t try to impose this new amoral orthodoxy on churches.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Share This

Author Kevin Theriot ADF Senior Counsel

ADF Senior Counsel - Church Project

Pgw0856

This judge is GAY he should have never been allowed to judge this case at all. It is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
Voice of Hope

Now I understand your fear. You see how Islam is viewed through the prism of equal rights for women, and fear Christianity will be viewed through a similiar one with regards to homosexuality.

You are right to be afraid, because, unless Christianity adapts, it will be.

But I think you can relax. Christianity has the ability to adapt. In a similiar manner that mainstream Chistianity no longer:
* Endorses Slavery (Lev 25:44)
* Allow selling ones daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)
* Worry about touching ones wife while she is menstruating (Lev 15:19-24)
* Stone people who work on sundays (Exodus 35:2)
* Finds eating shellfish sinful (Lev. 11:10)
* Finds haircuts around the temples sinful (Lev 19:27)
* Disallows touching dead pigs (bacon, ham, footballs) (Lev 11:6-8)
* Finds wearing fabics made of 2 materials, or planting 2 types of crops in the same field to be a sin (Lev 19:19)

In a similiar manner to the above, mainstream Christianity will get over the homosexual issue noted in Lev 18:22 and move on, putting the issue into the same bucket of antiquated and dated rules from the old testiment.

Ideally, focusing more on Jesus' main message: (Matt. 22:34-46, Mark 12:28-37, Luke 10:25-28, Luke 20:41-44, Lev 19:17-18)

Matt 22
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Hopefully, this time they can find a way to interpret this that involves a lot less 'enforcement' on people who don't believe the same way.
Voice of Reason

What sexual preference could a judge that you would perceive as NOT being a conflict of interest?

Are you trying to say that black judges cannot be impartial in civil rights cases?
Are you trying to say that female judges cannot be impartial in women's rights cases?

Your argument is ad hominem.

The lawyers on both sides of the case were aware of the rumored sexual orientation of judge walker back in January when the case was being tried. They were both explicitly asked about it, and both said they had no problems with Judge Walker.
http://twitter.com/OscarGecko Oscar Gecko

Gay “Rights” activists cannot pin down the purpose of marriage, other than contractual purposes.

What is the purpose of marriage? Tax breaks? Power of Attorney? A quick fix for discrimination?

And why should the government be involved in it? Should the government track and record religious events? Because, other than religious beliefs, there is no purpose of marriages outside of contracts. And, last time I checked, we do not need government approval for other personal contracts such as Power of Attorney.
Gary47a

Walker said nothing about conservatives being bigots. He said the purpose you advanced for excluding smae-sex couple from civil marriage was irrational. You can continue to believe marriage is only opposite sex couples, and preach this in your church.

You just have to profer a reason other than “Because God says so” in support of your preferred definition of marriage.
dancingcrane

Christianity was never bound to those Old Testament Laws that you mention. Christ's commandments fulfilled them, completed them, and surpassed them. He did tell his apostles, that with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what they bound on earth, would be bound in heaven. Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans, in chapters 1 and 2, is very clear on what happens to people who reject God's word, both in doing evil and approving of it, and in hating others when one commits sin oneself. Both are in mortal peril, those who go after their own sex, as Paul explicitly states, and those who proudly hate them, while indulging in their own mortal sins. No one who does evil, and refuses to repent, will get a free pass with God, no matter how fervently they believe in the part's of the Bible they happen to like.
a different hope

No . Christians CANNOT “get over it and move on”. Either it is God's opinion (abomination) or it isn't. To “get over it”, if you mean it isn't significant, is not possible for one who truly believes the Bible is the Word of God. To have to live in a world gone crazy is another matter. But a Christian (unlike those who merely profess) does not simply shrug his/her shoulders at what God calls evil. BTW, He said his purpose was to save sinners, and not to bring peace, but a sword, as far as personal relationships are concerned.
zappo777

The voice of hope is wrong to think Gods law is backwards—-the voice of hope here is the voice of SATAN—-Jesus came to fulfill the LAW not break them—-and don't push your abominations on real Christians and INNOCENT CHILDREN—if you hate this Christian Nation —leave it and DON”T COME BACK!!!!!! And take your PERVERTED SUPPORTERS WITH YOU!!!!!
Obtuseobserver

I'd think that belief that homosexual behavior is harmful to those who practice it is a question of fact and may be true in some cases but not in others.

However, to take the leap to the conclusion that disagreement on the point of fact makes those on the other side irrational forces a false choice.

Reasonable people may disagree. Disagreement is not, as a matter of fact, irrational. What happened to “dissent is the greatest form of patriotism”?
John Pack Lambert

This is one of the more disturbing parts of the ruling. If it is accepted as a matter of fact (not just law, but fact) that the views of religious people who teach that homosexual relationships are sinful are “harmful” to “gays and lesbians” (Judge Walker knew he was paring relationships with people, he intentionally ignored the fact that in virtually all religions it is homosexual relations, and not “sexual orientation” per se that is denounced) than it would seem likely that this is a harm that the state has to counteract.

This can easily be seen as precedent for deneying tax exempt status, deneying government subsidized loans to students at religious colleges and universities that uphold man/woman marriage, deneying adoption rights to parents who hold such “harmful” views, penalizing private schools for trying to uphold such “harmful” views, and having the Public Schools proactively try to eradicate such harmful views.
John Pack Lambert

There are actually two possible takes on this.

One is, why should one judge be allowed to make a ruling on broad public policy issues? The fact that he had to dig up all sorts of “statements of fact” that are false is disturbing.

This is clearly an issue of public policy, and thus should be decided through legislative processes, not by the courts.

Beyond that, the issue is not the judges “sexual prefernce”. The issue is that he is in a homosexual relationship of the kind that makes him likely to seek marriage with a member of the same gender.

Even at that, the real probelm with the judge is not pointed out. The real problem is the judge held a trial whne all the real issues are issues of law, the judge ignored the Supreme Court precedent that says the government can limit marriage to the union of a man and a woman and does not violate the 14th Admendment in doing so, and the judge sought to intimadate the defense.

Then their is his bizarre allowing of the County of San Francisco to join the plaintiffs while refusing to allow the count of Imperial to join the defense.
Voice of Reason

If you truely feel that way, you should brace yourself for generally being considered bigotted by those outside of your church.

Other religious groups who like to impose their beliefs on the general public, like the Taliban, have come to terms with it for their beliefs. It sounds like you will be able to too.

I'll be praying for you.
Voice of Reason

Indeed, all the expert testimony (Ilan Meyers) and personal testimony (plaintiffs) (especially and studies presented at trial showed conclusivly that widespread teaching that 'homosexuality' is a sin or that 'homosexuals' are inferior resulted in tangible harm to homosexuals.

This actually surprises you? Do you disagree with this conclusion?

The proponents at trial didn't even TRY to counter the evidence for this with anything.

Or are you saying that it is OK that these individuals suffer harm? That the state, which endorses no religion, should say that it is OK that these citizens, can be harmed for no other reason than who they are?

Which is it?
Voice of Reason

Let's break this down.

1. Marriage has been considered a fundamental right for over 80 years, and has many Supreme Court precedents to support that. Are you saying that laws or actions that potentially interfere with fundamental rights are not subject to judicial review? If your state passed a law that said “All people with blue eyes are not allowed to get married”, would that be a matter of public policy that is not subject to judicial review?

Thankfully, many decades of Supreme Court precent indicate that your interpretation is false. Civial rights violations (or potential ones) are subject to the courts review.

2. It is far from a matter of 'fact' what the Judge's sexual orientation even is, much less that he is in a romantic long term relationship. The San Francisco Chronicle sited that he has been seen in public on multiple occasions with the same man. That's all the 'evidence' there is to this regard. I hardly call that conclusive.

Walker has made no statement in any way with regards to his sexual orientation. Or his intention to marry anyone.

3. I assume the 'precendent' you are refering to is Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) where the Supreme Court upheld a Georgia sodmoy law. Two notes on this, 1. This case had no direct bearing on marriage rights, 2. (more importantly), this precendent was overruled in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Or perhaps you are refering to Davis v. Beason 133 U.S. 333 (1890), where the Surpreme Court upheld a prohibition on polygamy. Interesting notes on this, it dealt with polygamy, no mention of homosexuality. As a precendent for the federal courts being able to affect what kind of marriages are legal or not, that is true. But, it upheld this restriction primarily because polygamy is illegal. Homosexuality cannot be illegal in the United States ever since Lawrence v. Texas (noted above), due to the 14th amendment.
There may be an interesting case to make for questioning why polygamy is illegal. I am not making that case, nor am I interested in doing so.

If you can point to a different precendent, please do so.

4. Imperial county missed the deadline to file to be a defendant intervener. There is nothing very bizarre about that.
Gigi56

What harm are gay and lesbian people experiencing by not being able to “marry”? They can enter into contractual arrangements, they can legally will their possessions to each other, they can live together and already do. No one is stopping. They just want to force society to accept them and that will never happen, law or no law. Even if the law stands, you can't change people's hearts and consciences. That's the bottom line and they know it.
Obtuseobserver

How about because the state has a compelling interest in sanctioning a traditional nuclear family as the preferred unit for raising children; the fundamental building block of society.

No one argued “because God said so” as the basis for the law.

Take a gander at world history. That form, mom and dad raising kids together, emerges across cultural, economic, historical etc. lines as the single most common for a specific reason. It works. That is rational. The state sanctioning Tom's marriage to Bill is irrational because try a they might they will never conceive children.
Bruce L

Hmmm…polygamy is illegal? Who said that? Maybe the voters…..Hmmm.

My understanding of polygamy is that it is a form of marriage that is illegal. Couldn't the reasoning that the judge used in the Prop 8 case be used to make polygamy legal? Maybe we would need a polygamous judge for that.

If polygamy can be made illegal so can homosexual marriage.
Bruce L

“Who they are…” This assumes that homosexuality is an immutable physical characteristic of a person, which there is no proof of. The judges ruling does not affect what people teach, so how is it preventing harm?

A judge cannot change people's hearts and minds. The law cannot force individuals to accept homosexuality as normal. I knew that homosexual behavior was wrong before I ever went to church or read the Bible. It is an immutable physical characteristic. It is “who I am.” I think I should be protected by a judge lest harm come to me by those that think homosexual behavior is normal.
Pingback: North Korea: Is This Where Our Country is Headed? |
Jchiac

First off, I am in no way aligned with the radical homosexual or religious agendas. I am writing about the valid reasons how this case can, and where it cannot cause harm to society. With that said: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had to grant an indefinite stay in the Prop 8 case because Judge Walker chose to ignore precedence and through judicial supremacy ruled same sex options to be more important than traditional ones, by ruling same sex relationships deserve the same rights and responsibilities as traditional marriages. That last part of the statement sounds fair until one starts digging deeper into this ruling. It took 136 pages for Walker, with the help of a few hand picked intellectuals, to arrogantly portray the majority and their representatives in this country as too ignorant to have any part in defining marriage. I will explain why the word “marriage” is so important to the far-reaching homosexual agenda, and how redefining that word is the doorway into the most far-reaching aspects of the agenda, and most importantly how it would cause harm to/in society, and prove the proponents of prop 8 have standing! There is only one valid argument accepted by the heterosexual majority in this country, and that is to allow gays to get economic benefits from the government traditionally granted to married couples,…by the government. Now there are no other “acceptable” benefits afforded homosexuals by redefining traditional marriage, morality and societies moral foundation.

Judge Walker and gay activists want to plant in my mind gay marriage is equal to things like the abolition of slavery, or women overcoming patriarchy! Well that just gives the gay side a false sense of credibility by exploiting those past struggles. Furthermore, I am insulted by the racist attitude of Judge Walker that claims I don’t know any better. Gay activists are showing there true colors to label my concerns as irrational! They claim anyone who opposes their view is a bigot or homophobe! They think that helps justify their actions, but it's clearly not reality. What is Judge Walkers 136 page reasoning? Logic would dictate Judge walker now believes it’s gays right because some carefully selected PhD’s conclude evolutionary psychology, due to existence of homosexuality, is a better alternative to a Constitution? I am not religious but OMG! One activist, who is also a judge, knows better about all things moral and political! Well if that is the case Mr. Walker you are truly in the best position possible for a gay activist, but are also so wrong and totally demented as a judge. How dare you marginalize all opponents to your point of view? Its blatantly obvious you are a gay activist, and your actions as a judge show homosexual ideas of what should be redefined are of utmost importance to you.

It’s obvious the hired professionals/intellectuals for the religious or gay side behave in a way that shows they only care about factors recognized by the cause they are working for, and the resulting intellectual ideology established, dismissing any factors not controllable and recognized by the extremist agendas. That leads me to the fact these people, due to conflicts of interest, are not acting intelligently, they are acting stupid, selfish, or narrow minded, making them just salespeople of the most far-reaching aspects of, especially the homosexual agenda. Now that is what exposes the close mindedness and racist attitude of that agenda.

The reason the heterosexual majority has had enough is because our societies moral guidelines have already been compromised/pushed to a questionable limit, and it was a minority that has pushed that agenda on everyone else. Here we go again, using lots of money…using a good law firm…using an activist judge who has “lost sight” of the ethical limitations of the court. For the government to take full responsibility and embrace every right the homosexual agenda demands, it would have to take into consideration the reality of each individual homosexuals feelings by addressing the enormity of the extent to which today’s society erodes their capacity to feel normal/accepted. No one thinking rationally can think unlimited redefining of societies moral guidelines, so the homosexuals feel better about there life, is the best solution to this! Follow the logic….where would it end?
Obtuseobserver

Not analogous.

You're comparing behavior that was once tolerated that is no longer tolerated to behavior that has been prohibitted.

Further, as Christians we are obligated to love the sinner and scorn the sin. There is nothing in the comandment to love that overrides Leviticus etc.
Flores0456

“Stand up stand up for Jesus,ye soldiers of the Cross,lift up His royal Banner,it must not suffer loss”
Randy K.

Walker, as Chief Justice, was afforded the right to position himself in such a way that he could insure that he would be the one to hear Perry v. Rather then letting the chips fall where they may; Walker has demonstrated his bias from the very moment this case was filed.

Objecting to Walker as a jurist would have been a bad move when you consider that everybody – including Walker – fully expected this case to be appealed. (The judge) telegraphed every single one of the punches he through, but then, in a Mike Tyson moment, this same sex enthusiast went straight for the 1st Amendment rights of the opposition – the right of conscience and the free exercise thereof.
Pingback: The Homosexual Agenda Marches Steadily Forward |
Pingback: Same-Sex “Marriage”- What Would It Mean For Churches? |
Markus

The state getting involved in marriage was one of the greatest travesties of the modern age. There was no license to marry until states decided, erroneously, that it was in their best interest to keep interracial marriages from happening. If we just get the state out of the world of marriage, then this whole problem would be solved. People could enter into marriage contracts/covenants/agreements as they wish and the dissolution of those contracts would fall under contract law. After all, I don’t need permission from my JP to enter into a contract with AT&T for my cell phone, do I? Why then do I need a JP’s permission to enter into a civil contract with a woman?
Pingback: Have you forgotten God as well? - Page 9