Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Judge overturns California gay marriage ban

"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote in his 136-page ruling.

He also said proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animus toward gays — beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school.

"Proposition 8 played on the a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual," Walker wrote.

The problem is of course that we are not sure that the Judge himself is not gay thus biased and we need to know that in these cases. How can the judges sexuality not come into question? Was there a jury of some kind? From his writing he certainly seems to stem from the homosexual camp. He starts off entirely looking at the issue as a matter of status. To be a couple they would have to be complimentary, they would have to be equal and opposite. When this judge makes the decision he is starting off from a view point of "all things being equal" which in reality they are not. When we consider that the only legal origin of homosexuality in America is as a psychiatric disorder and heterosexual marriage in the United States is not they are not equal in the first place, nor are they equal when a heterosexual couple can have the potential for children of their own and the homosexuals cannot. Of course it is true that the people who can have children of their own ought to have the greatest say in what type of environment the children ought to be raised. Gay marriage makes a request of heterosexuals to lie to themselves in the same way that homosexuals have lied to themselves, that there is nothing abnormal about their behavior. The problem is that the homosexuals are psychiatrically ill. The government ran to professor Nash of Princeton for his academic expertise and got it, the only problem is they got it from a madman, he was a schizophrenic. Judge Walker has demonstrated that he presides over nothing more than a Caligulian courtroom, where democracy is over turned by a single person who is subject to the same bias and prejudices we all are. I do not think that it is just a matter that the emperor has no clothes as much as the fact that we have an emperor in these courtrooms at all, then send armies over seas to spread "democracy".I also find that it is illegitimate to disqualify the positions of religious bodies such as the Church and the Muslims and the Rabbi's. I do not see how any people that vast and long standing could be completely irrelevant to the judgment of man when in fact they serve a precise function in society to do just that. To know and love God and to have Him as the focal point of man's decision making, what other person outside of man would suffice for the purpose? How does man know when he is sound or not? If any one, professor Nash proved that belief in a rational man is in fact an irrationally disproportionate assumption towards that very belief. The belief that man is a rational creature at all is in fact irrational judging from the history of man.