Proposition 8 Ruling: California S.Ct. gets it Right. Marriage, Rule of Law Prevail

"When the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so...the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative."

SACRAMENTO, CA (Catholic Online) - I remember the day Judge Vaughan Walker's opinion striking down Proposition 8 was released, August 4, 2010. The crowds outside the Courthouse waved homosexual Rainbow flags and signs emblazoned with the latest popular slogan of the Homosexual Equivalency movement "All Love is Equal".  The mistaken opinion was a foregone conclusion. Judge Walker had heard 13 days of testimony and legal arguments in his review of California's Proposition 8. He signaled his leanings many times throughout the trial. The proposition declared marriage to be what it is, a union between a man and a woman. It was properly passed by 7 million Californians. The Judge did not like the Proposition.   Questions were raised concerning his impartiality. He was rumored to be a practicing homosexual who was living with his male paramour. However, this was deemed to be irrelevant. Months after issuing a 138 page opinion - which the homosexual equivalency movement viewed as a great accomplishment in their cultural revolution -  the judge retired and later told reporters he was homosexual and had been living with a male doctor for ten years. In Walker's opinion he wrote: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. 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.  Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional." In an act of judicial imperialism, Judge Walker set aside Proposition 8. He also became an icon for the New Cultural Revolution, lending the authority of his judicial office to a fringe group who opposed the will of the people and the truth confirmed by the Natural Law about the nature of authentic Marriage. He succumbed to the mistaken notion that his judicial office gave him the ability to change the structure of reality. In rejecting the will of the people of California, he wrote: "Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8.  California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings." "Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58" Members of the homosexual equivalency movement assert there is a moral equivalency between homosexual relationships and marriage. However, they go further. They now demand a legal equivalency be given to homosexual relationships and marriage. They want the Police Power of the State to enforce it. They reject the truth concerning the nature of marriage, the good of the children and the common good.

Authentic marriage, and the family and society founded upon it, are the foundation of a free and healthy society. This position in favor of marriage as between one man and one woman is not simply a "religious" position; it is an objective truth.  It is affirmed by the Natural law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason. It is also accepted across cultures. The "talking points" parroted by the main stream media the day of the decision came right out of the Homosexual Equivalency Activists playbook. Groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund tried to force a comparison between this incorrect opinion of Judge Walker and the correct opinion in the 1967 Supreme Court Case of Loving v. Virginia. The Loving opinion properly struck down as unconstitutional the Virginia law prohibiting marriage between a black man and white woman or black woman and white man. The comparison the Homosexual Equivalency Activists try to make is false. The Lovings - whose marriage became the basis of the US Supreme Court opinion - were a man and a woman. As such they were capable of and entered into a marriage. An unjust law declared their proper and loving union to be "illegal" because they had differing skin pigmentation! It was properly struck down as an egregious violation of the Equal protection clause. What the Homosexual Equivalency Movement demands is that the Police Power of the State force everyone to call a relationship which is incapable of being a marriage -  a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman who engage in non-marital sexual acts together for a protracted period of time- to be a marriage. Opposition to calling homosexual partnerships the equivalent of marriage has nothing to do with discrimination. Not all relationships can form the basis for a marriage. Not all "love" is equal, in spite of the slogans of the movement. This is an objective truth. The opinion of Judge Walker striking down Proposition 8 was appealed to the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The Appeal had to be filed by citizens and public interest groups defending marriage because the Governor and the Attorney General refused to obey the law and discharge their official duties. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a Federal Court, turned back to the California State Supreme Court and asked for a legal opinion concerning the California Constitution; whether the defenders of Marriage and the proposition passed by the people of California had the legal standing to file the Appeal.  This was the sole question posed to the State Supreme Court,  "[w]hether under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so." On November 17, 2011, in a 61 page opinion, and a seven page concurring opinion, the California State Supreme Court answered the question unanimously, "when the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so, under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Elections Code, the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative." In the immediate future, this simply means the Appeal can proceed in the 9th Circuit. If the California Supreme Court had found that the citizens and interests groups who filed the Appeal did not have "standing" (the legal right to bring the Appeal) the case would have been over. Defenders of Marriage and prop 8 are not confident in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals because it is an activist Court committed to the kind of cultural and social agenda evidenced by Judge Walker's opinion. However, what this ruling does is keep this important case alive for what will most likely be a final disposition at the United States Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court got it right this time. Their decision is a victory for marriage and the rule of law.

Supporting FREE Catholic Education with Grass-fed Beef

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'