suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

CUTTING THROUGH HIS WORD-FOG: JUDGE WALKER *ALSO* DESPICABLY, IRRATIONALLY INCLUDED HATRED OF CHRISTIANITY IN HIS “RULING” AGAINST PROP.8

Judge Walker’s vile, moralistic wreck of a decision against California’s Proposition 8 has been revealed to contain another, added dimension: he’s an anti-Christian who worked his animosity about Christianity and Christian theology into his ruling.

Walker’s behavior — including his “138 page ruling” — certifies that the accusation by persons of his state of mind (he’s a proponent of “‘gay marriage'” and of his behavior (he’s a man who engages in homosexuality), that, the entire problem in our nation is as to “Social Conservatives'” and their beliefs, Walker’s amply evidenced that, indeed, the moralizing and “social warfare” taking place is entirely from among those like Walker, against the rest of us, “society” so Walker refers disdainfully to us.

How Walker’s animus about Christ and Christianity was relevant to his considerations, as to the Constitution, of Proposition 8 shall be left to psychiatrists to determine, but, clearly Judge Walker used the opportunity before him to launch his personal hatred of “society,” about “heterosexuals,” about “the majority (in his ruling, Walker defined “the majority” as society and heterosexuals) and about Christianity.

The man’s got more than a few issues that define substantial emotional, psychological and spiritual problems. Some of these problems were addressed in my earlier post of today (“TED OLSON & JUDGE WALKER TO PROP. 8: THEY’RE TWISTING TO A TENNESSEE WALTZ“), but, this latest discovery about Walker’s ruling is considerably more troubling a statement about Walker’s character, mind, and prejudices.

Prop. 8 Judge: Pope Hurt Homosexuals
— by James Tillman from LifeSiteNews.com

SAN FRANCISCO, California, August 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) — In the 136-page ruling overturning California’s ban on “gay marriage,” Judge Vaughn Walker cites a document signed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to show that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful” can “harm gays and lesbians.”

William May, chairman of Catholics for the Common Good (CCG), told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that it was shocking for a federal court to rule that “Catholic teaching and [that] that of other religions are harmful to anyone.”

He also said that Walker’s ruling demonstrates how “freedom for religious expression and the private interests and feelings of individuals” are on a collision course.

“Religion has always been seen as a good,” he said, but “now it is being seen by an increasing number of people as harmful.”

The document that Judge Walker quoted, entitled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” was issued in 2003 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was then prefect.

The ruling quotes the document’s statement that “Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts ‘as a serious depravity.'”

The ruling also quotes the statement that there “are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family,” as well other short statements summarizing Catholic theology.

These quotations are offered in support of the ruling’s 77th “finding of fact”: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

Walker’s ruling has fully 80 findings of fact, which are separated from the “conclusions of law” in which he decides the case. Appellate courts are typically deferential to a lower court’s findings of fact, which has lead most commentators to agree that Walker’s ruling was specifically written to withstand appeal.

As evidence that religious beliefs harm homosexuals, Walker also quotes resolutions from the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the Orthodox Church of America.

None of these resolutions recommend violence against homosexuals; all of them generally state only that homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s will. (– Continued).

Clearly Justice Walker displays a predisposed if not violence negating attitude about Christianity, and through that prejudice, against the concept of marriage as representing any theological or theologically sanctioned relationship, setting aside particular venom — unnecessarily, that reaches beyond mere academic disagreement — for Christianity as it states theology he finds contrary to his own beliefs, claiming that Christianity “hurts gays and lesbians” as Walker did in the context of Proposition 8 then defames or attempts to discredit marriage as defined by anyone other than by “gays and lesbians” (and by Justice Walker among that population).

The good thing that has come from Justice Walker’s ruling from last week is that the voters of this nation have now had a glimpse of a very disturbed man on the Judiciary.

Justice Walker used his animus for Christian theology and others who editiorialized in their views about their beliefs in such (an exercise in their Freedom of Religion) to declare that the religious context of marriage — as accepted and promoted for centuries now among human civilization — is unsupportable by our Constitution because, so Walker declared, “it harms gays and lesbians.”

There is no physical harm being even so much as suggested be done to “gays and lesbians” by Christianity — of all the denominations identified so far as to Walker’s consideration (listed in above article, quoted) — so the “harm” that Judge Walker refers to exists in the perceptions of “gays and lesbians” only. They experience disagreement with Christian theology such that they experience “harm” when they consider Christian theology, and thus, so Walker’s concluded, the theology is wrong, to be dismissed while the “harm” that “gays and lesbians” experience is to trump or eradicate our Freedom of Religion? Our Constitution is ‘read’ by a Judge who believes what exists in homosexuals’ perceptions rules the law of the land?

Let’s consider this: Judge Walker’s dank ideas cause me harms. I feel “harm” when I read so much as a portion of his wonky moralizing as in his opionion on Proposition 8, and therefore, by Walker’s own example, Walker’s opinions should not be of public influence. What he opines causes harm to me as a heterosexual (and a Christian) and therefore his opinions need not be considered in public policy.

Read Dan McLaughlin’s remarkable post to gain a very good understanding of what has taken place as to Judge Walker’s woeful if not weird denigration of Proposition 8 — what follows is perhaps the best possible discussion of Walker’s ruling, his state of mind as reflected in that ruling and the issue altogether:

The Prop 8 Decision: Having It Both Ways
— by Dan McLaughlin of BaseballCrank.com, August 08, 2010

Judge Vaughan Walker, the chief district judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, handed down his post-trial decision yesterday in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, holding that Proposition 8 – the referendum approved by California voters in 2008, amending the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman and thus deny recognition to same-sex “marriages” – violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. In a larger sense, the lawsuit, seeking to overturn judicially a status quo that has existed for essentially all of human history and was only recently reaffirmed by the California electorate, is yet more proof that it’s not conservatives who are on the offensive in the ‘culture wars’. But even focusing on the judicial process, and setting to one side its reliance on the oxymoronic concept of “substantive due process,” Judge Walker’s decision is fundamentally flawed in three ways, two of which represent failures of reasoning and the third of which highlights the structural problem with substituting judicial “factfinding” for the collected judgment of a democratic electorate. Specifically… (– Continued).

Share

C O M M E N T S : now closed