San Francisco Values Win Again

August 6, 2010  •  From
Federal judge overturns California ban on homosexual “marriage.”

When Californians voted to ban same-sex “marriage” in 2008, some Republicans held up the referendum as surefire proof that the United States was conservative to the core. But as we wrote at the time, just because California and two other states voted against homosexual “marriage,” that certainly did not mean America was in the midst of a moral revival. That same-sex “marriage” was even on the ballot perfectly illustrated how steep our slide into deviant behavior has been over the past generation.

In the case of California, Proposition 8 passed by a narrow 52-to-48 percent margin. “But with obnoxious protests and numerous legal challenges now set to inundate courtrooms,” we asked at the time, “how long will marriage remain defined in California as between a man and woman?”

Answer: Less than two years.

This week, federal judge Vaughn Walker issued a detailed, 136-page opinion overturning California’s ban on same-sex unions. With the stroke of a pen, as some commentators noted, one radically liberal jurist voided the opinion of 7 million Californians who voted in favor of the ban.

“That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant,” Walker asserted (emphasis mine throughout).

Those who defend marriage in the traditional sense have correctly noted that in every state where same-sex “marriages” are legal, it is the judicial or legislative branches that have approved the measure—not the voters.

But what makes Walker’s ruling especially noteworthy is that it marks the first time a federal judge has ruled that same-sex “marriage” is constitutional (based on a distorted reading of the Fourteenth Amendment). This means the Supreme Court will most likely have final say in settling this dispute.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, outlined what is at stake for America: “This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the ‘Roe v. Wade’ of same-sex ‘marriage,’ overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court’s involvement would only make the issue more volatile.”

Yet, barring a stunning reversal at the infamously liberal Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court’s involvement appears to be inevitable. And if this goes to the Supreme Court, we should not assume that the right-leaning group of justices would automatically reverse Judge Walker’s judicial activism. In 2003, remember, when called upon to uphold a Texas law against sodomy, the court ruled by a vote of 6 to 3 that states have no right to criminalize homosexual conduct.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia—perhaps the most conservative justice on the bench—acknowledged that if homosexual conduct was now constitutional, “[W]hat justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples”?

Indeed, in his ruling this week, Judge Walker grabbed that line of reasoning and ran with it, stating that homosexual conduct and attraction are constitutionally protected. By “constitutionally protected,” of course, he was referring to the 2003 ruling—certainly not the original intent of those who actually framed the Constitution as law of the land.

As Mark Levin wrote in Men in Black, at America’s founding, “[S]odomy was a criminal offense under the common law and was prohibited by the original 13 states when they ratified the Bill of Rights.” These laws, of course, were grounded in Scripture, which is why—after voiding the votes of 7 million Californians and trampling over the Fourteenth Amendment—Judge Walker reserved his most contemptuous condemnation for religion and morality.

Among his findings of fact, for example, Judge Walker ruled, “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” To support this “factual” finding, he cites 18 examples—most of them just doctrinal explanations from religious groups denouncing homosexual behavior as unbiblical and sinful.

In Judge Walker’s mind, it is Bible-based theology, not unnatural or unlawful sexual orientation, that poses a dangerous threat to homosexuals and lesbians.

Walker wrote, “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.” And this, he concluded, is no basis for legislating against same-sex “marriages.” Religion and morality, in other words, have absolutely no bearing on whether or not homosexual “marriage” is constitutional.

It’s a far cry from the way our Founding Fathers viewed constitutional law. The way President John Adams viewed it, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

America’s first president, George Washington, said during his Farewell Address in 1796, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

These God-fearing men understood well that without the moral restrictions of a higher spiritual law, the many liberties afforded Americans in the Constitution would lead to anarchy—and end in destruction.

This is the road we are on. This is why, even as conservative commentators assure Americans that a moral revival is right around the corner, we tell you the truth.

Four years ago, remember, a radical leftist from San Francisco—who favors homosexual “marriage,” abortion rights, higher taxes, amnesty for illegal immigrants and appeasement and retreat in the war against terror—led the liberal charge across Capitol Hill.

At the time, my father warned that those midterm elections “changed American politics forever.” He wrote,

San Francisco values will now permeate every major decision made by the American government.

San Francisco is the homosexual capital of America. It is a seat of liberalism and one of the most morally and spiritually bankrupt cities in the country. Now a leader saturated in San Francisco values and beliefs is one of the most powerful politicians in the land.

That’s what he wrote in 2006 about Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic sweep through both houses of Congress. That was two years before the American electorate handed the White House over to the most radical liberal in U.S. history.

It was almost four years before one lone judge—an open homosexual who hails from San Francisco—imposed his perverted world view on the state of California and, quite possibly, the rest of the United States.

GoogleFollow Stephen Flurry on Twitter or e-mail him. You can read his past articles here.
Recent articles: