Dr J’s Amended Statement Lamenting the Overturn of Prop 8
Dr Jennifer Roback Morse, Foundress and President of the Ruth Institute, lamented the overturn of Proposition 8 by openly gay Judge Vaughn Walker, who is widely reported to be gay. “Judge Walker’s reasoning today in overturning Prop 8 illustrates that he does not understand the essential public purpose of marriage, which is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. He replaces this public purpose with private purposes of adults’ feelings and desires.”
Dr. Morse continued: “by the time Judge Walker and his ilk are finished, there will be nothing left of marriage but a government registry of friendships. The essential problem of attaching children to the mothers and fathers will be pushed aside, and will have to be solved some other way.”
The Ruth Institute has been active in the efforts to educate the public about the essential public purpose of marriage, the social benefits of natural marriage, and the harms to society from redefining marriage. Dr Morse, former economics professor at Yale and George Mason Universities, produced a four hour lecture series, called “Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone.” To quote just a few of the many arguments she made in that series: Redefining marriage as the union of any two persons will undermine the biological basis for parenthood, which amounts to a redefinition of parenthood. Same sex Marriage will marginalize men from the family. Redefining marriage will increase the power of the state over civil society, including religious bodies.
“Surely the voters have the right to be consulted before making such a major change in public policy,” Dr. Morse said today. “Judge Walker has no right to disparage the voters of California the way he does in this opinion. “
His opinion amounts to this sloppy syllogism. ‘First, I don’t understand that there are any arguments in favor of natural marriage. Therefore, there are no arguments in favor of natural marriage. Conclusion: unlawful animus against gays and lesbians is the only possible reason 7 million voters supported natural marriage.’ Dr. Morse stated: “The fact that he doesn’t understand the arguments, doesn’t mean there aren’t any. And it is truly unprecedented for a judge to decide that some ideas cannot even be contested in public debate. The Ruth Institute will continue to educate the public about the significant role of natural marriage in society, and the harms from redefining marriage.”
Loading ...
Natural marriage will continue to be under attack as long as abortion and protecting abortion is the law of the land. There will be no victory in preserving marriage until there is victory in preserving life which is concieved in marriage and that includes doing away with abortieffiecent birth control pills also. When hetrosexual couples stop nuetering themselves and stop mudering when the nuter plan has failed then judges will be able again to understand reason and natural law and marriage will again make sense.
the judge had to rule on the arguements and the witnesses presented from both sides. he was not saying that there were no arguments available for natural marriage.
he was saying that the defense did not succeed in presenting those arguments in a way that he could accept in the form required by constitutional law. the defense did a very poor job. why didnt you step up and become an expert defense witness. where were you in all of this?
Judge Walker was already bias from the get go. He would have ruled the same way NO MATTER WHAT.
It’s time – that every man & woman who wishes to protect his or her family, STEP-UP and defend the Institution of Marriage, Family Values and the Dignity of Life NOW more then ever and become EXPERT WITNESSES and BEGIN THE DIALOGUE.
well and good…but why didnt you present such expert testimony at this “trial” to build and protect a record as well as that of development phsycologists to discuss “modelling” as how children learn etc. It The legal team can talk about “legislative facts” but they have to articulate them a lot better in terms of legitimate public purposes and need to make offers of proof of evidentiary facts as well to keep from getting bushwacked in other cases where propositions or constitutional bans are attacked.
I don’t understant how a homosexual judge can decide an unbiased decision, if this was a jury, it would be thrown out, this only goes to show we better wake up before it’s too late and the inmates will be running the asylum.
@fw sonnek
I agree with you sonnek on this and strongly if you happen to catch Jim Garlows response you would think the same and he was actually called as a witness but made the excuse he could not because he was a pastor of a church.
Why would Garlows testimony as he is opining so heavily now.. made a difference because the two witness were de constructed easily and came off with opionon but no fact. Now to
Garlow he actually would have made a difference down the road…yes THIS CASE would have been lost but Judge Walker would have had to give due to Garlow , now this is how Garlow and this lady would have finally won…down the road…9th circuit would be close believe it or not but lets say it goes to Supreme Court this is where Kennedy would give Garlow his due and it would be 5-4 as it is the case with the two weak witnesses get before Kennedy he will pivot and vote with the progressive 4.
This ruling reminds me of Roe v. wade! So many of us ‘talk the talk’, but when it comes to walking the walk we shy away and I guess until this all hit the Florida news, I was not aware that a Federal Judge could overturn the will of the voter who cast their vote to define marraige as being between a man and a women. This issue along with the overall attack on marraige is but ‘one head’ of satan, abortion and contraception a second and third. All heads must be cut at the same time and for me that is through prayer and when possible through my treasures. Have any of you signed up for the novena that begins today in preparation for the Feast of the Assumption being sponsored by Priest for LIfe? Dr. J please keep the battle going as this indeed is a war against good and evil.
“I don’t understant how a homosexual judge can decide an unbiased decision, if this was a jury, it would be thrown out, this only goes to show we better wake up before it’s too late and the inmates will be running the asylum.”
Robert, I guess you don’t believe that a black judge can decide a case involving racial discrimination or that a female judge can decide a case involving sex discrimination or sexual harassment. I guess Clarence Thomas will now have to recuse himself from any case involving black people, since it is apparently impossible for a judge to decide cases without his or her private life and personal decisions impeding his or her ability to decide a case fairly. What an absolutely ridiculous attitude. Oh and by the way, the inmates WERE running the asylum–they were known as the George W. Bush Administration. Or, at least they SHOULD be inmates…in federal prison that is.
Would you suggest that Justice Thurgood Marshall should have recused himself from any Supreme Court cases involving race?
And we have evidence of Judge Walker’s ability to find on the basis of the law, despite his purported sexual orientation: in the early 80′s he was the judge who ruled against the organizers of the Gay Olympics by finding that only the U.S. Olympic Committee had control over the rights to the word “Olympics” in that context.
Finally, the defendants in the current marriage case had every opportunity to press Judge Walker to recuse himself. They didn’t do so.
Walker’s opinion, such as it is, is not actually about the real questions of law. He could have decided those questions without hearing any testimony. But then he would have had to decide for the pro-8 litigants.
Instead he chose to put on a show trial in which his personal policy preference would be given central stage. If his policy preference matched that of the litigants of either side, then, yeap, he had a duty to recuse himself. In other words, Walker was endgaming and abusing his position on the federal bench.
But his policy preference, such as it is, will not be relevant to the courts in the appeals process. Those courts do not need to take his “finding of fact” as written in constitutional stone. He over-stepped all over the preogatives of the appeals courts.
Whether or not Walker identifies himself as homosexual or identifies himself as “gay”, his personal policy preference was what his trial was all about. Not justice. Not marriage. Not even the constitution.
The Olympics case is thus quite different.