by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
Justice Vaughn Walker’s ruling that California’s Prop 8 amendment — declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman — is unconstitutional is a serious challenge to the results of victorious referenda in 31 American states and an important step in the ongoing Cultural War against Christianity.
Consequently, its analysis is important for all who stand for traditional marriage and the natural moral law.
Same-Sex “Marriage” is Not the Ultimate Goal of the Homosexual Lobby
First of all, we should take note how Judge Walker’s ruling reveals how wrong we are to believe that the homosexual movement will be content and disband, once it imposes same-sex “marriage” on the nation.
The movement will neither stop nor be content, just as it was not satisfied in those states where it secured legalization of “domestic partnerships” and “civil unions.” Once the notion of the ultimate purpose of the sexual act and marriage is destroyed, a breach is opened through which all the demands of the so-called “sexual minorities” come charging through.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) is the movement’s most common acronym. Pressure has been growing over the years for the inclusion of new categories (Q, U, C, I, P, O, A, TS, Z), and everything indicates the acronym will expand.
But if we consider the acronym as it stands today, homosexual “marriage” satisfies (at least temporarily) only two of those categories, the “L” and the “G”. Two others still seek societal acceptance as far as “marriage” is concerned: the “B” (bisexual) and the “T” (transgender).
Having struck down Prop 8 for lack of a “rational basis” in restricting marriage to the union of one man and one woman, on what basis does Judge Walker restrict it to “a couple?”
For if marriage is independent of the sex of the parties, and if — as stated in Judge Walker’s ruling — its decisive elements are (a) “choice,” (b) being “committed to one another,” and, (c) “form[ing] a household based on their own feelings about one another,”1 why can a bisexual woman not have a polyamorous group marriage with a man (“husband”) and another bisexual woman (“wife”), as happened in Holland in 2005?2
And what will the “marriage” of “transgenders” look like?3
Overthrowing the Most Obvious Barrier...
I insist on the crucial point: the difference between sexes as it exists in marriage the way it has always been understood, is the most obvious barrier to changing the concept of marriage. A mere look at the anatomy and physiology of the human body suffices to ascertain that men and women are sexually complementary and the difference in sex perfectly fulfills the end of the sexual act, which is human reproduction.
Once this obvious barrier is overthrown, how can anyone prevent other barriers from also falling, such as age (which prevents pedophilia), consanguinity (which preempts the practice of incest), or even the barrier of species (bestiality-zoophilia), a sexual aberration which is already being advocated?4
Someone will say that those extremes will never be attained because the opinion of experts is decisive in the courts today and they evidently need to maintain a modicum of scientific basis in their findings.
This is precisely where Judge Walker’s ruling helps clarify matters: he quoted the opinion of experts from the homosexual side who acted much more like ideological activists for the homosexual cause than scientists.5
This is how Judge Walker presents some statements by these experts:
a) “children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial … having parents of different genders is irrelevant to child outcome.”6
b) “Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.”7
What is scientific about this peremptory affirmation that the gender of a parent is “immaterial” and “irrelevant” to child formation? The absolutism of this statement shows its lack of scientific character. Science is made of nuances and distinctions, taking circumstances into account.
It is the longstanding consensus of all peoples, confirmed by studies guided by science rather than ideology, that it is ideal for a child’s formation to have a father (man) and a mother (woman).8
Likewise, it is unscientific to brand as a mere stereotype without scientific basis, the showing of concern over diseases that are sexually transmitted and that are common among homosexuals, particularly today, when the HIV-AIDS epidemic still ravages society. Health agencies and even some homosexual activists recognize that reality.
The latest study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of August 2010, titled Projecting Possible Future Courses of the HIV Epidemic in the United States, presents the following picture:
Nearly 30 years into the HIV epidemic, HIV continues to take a heavy toll in the United States. More than 1.1 million people are currently living with HIV, nearly 18,000 people with AIDS still die each year, and lifetime medical care for those who become infected with HIV each year is estimated to cost $20 billion. Gay and bisexual men of all races, African-Americans, Latinos, and injection drug users are most affected.9
Matt Foreman, at the time Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, stated at the 20th National Conference on LGBT, in Detroit, Mich., on Feb. 8, 2008: “Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”10
Equally unscientific is to label as a stereotype the fact that children of lesbians and homosexuals tend to imitate their behavior. The very psychology of learning shows how a child tends to imitate those who raise them, particularly parents.11
Studies abound, some of which even use research by pro-homosexual authors, that show that the children of homosexuals tend to follow in the footsteps of their parents.12
Therefore, one cannot expect that “experts” who are ideological activists for homosexual causes — and who did not behave scientifically when it came to demolishing the gender barrier — will remain scientifically neutral when it comes to overthrowing other barriers such as age, consanguinity or species.
Is it Forbidden to Speak of Sin?
The anti-religious and anti-Catholic bias of Judge Walker and his activist experts is patent.
In Finding of Fact no. 77, he concludes: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”13
Among the “evidence” he presents is the document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith titled, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, of June 3, 2003, which reiterates Catholic doctrine in this regard. Judge Walker also cites documents from other religions.
Now then, does following the norms of Catholic morals and defining such relationships as “sinful” harm a sinner? What exactly is this harm? Is it physical, psychological? Will the State now declare Catholic morals to be the cause of neuroses and that it therefore has a duty to suppress them in furtherance of public health?
This is all the more so since Judge Walker appears to consider Christian morals as irrational, saying in his ruling that restricting marriage to the union of a man and a woman, “creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation,”14 and does not have “any rational basis,”15 but is a fruit of “a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.”16
At Stake: the Very Notion of Good and Evil
The ongoing homosexual offensive — and Judge Walker’s ruling is its spearhead today — is the latest development of a centuries-long process which has been destroying Christian civilization; a process which Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira called the Revolution. Not a revolution in the military sense of the word, but in a broader sense of the destruction of a legitimate religious and cultural order and its replacement with an illegitimate state of things.
Over the centuries, the focal point of this subversive process was increasingly to destroy the notion of good and evil, sin and virtue.17
In his ruling, Judge Walker defended equality between homosexual and heterosexual marriage and thus between the homosexual and heterosexual act.18 At the same time, he branded criticism of homosexuality as groundless “stereotypes.”19 Going even further, he concluded that a moral classification based on a person’s sexual orientation is “irrational.”20 Hence the conclusion is that he considers the practice of the homosexual act as something good. But that conclusion destroys the very foundation of the natural Law, and thus of the practical reason, based on which, man makes judgments on the uprightness or perversity of an act.21
The State thus becomes the guarantor of “homosexual morality” in opposition to Christian morality and the Natural Moral Law; and those who abide by traditional Christian morals and the natural moral law, thereby acquire the status of a persecuted class oppressed by the law.
Indeed, the moral law is not something accidental to Religion, particularly Catholicism. It is as important as dogma; for it is the practical norm of how to act according to the Faith.22 Therefore, a negation of the principles of morals is at least an implicit negation of the Faith; for if one is not obliged to obey God in one’s actions, neither is one obliged to obey Him in one’s beliefs. Thus, a Catholic cannot abandon the practice of traditional morals without apostasy from the Faith.
Now then, if the law imposes acceptance of “homosexual morality” it will punish those who, following the dictates of natural Law, continue to affirm that the homosexual act is a grave moral fault and therefore refuse to equate a relationship based on that act (the so-called homosexual “marriage”) with true marriage, that is, a union between a man and a woman.
As a matter of fact, already there are known examples of this persecution both here and in Europe.23
At this critical juncture, instead of taking a passive and conformist attitude, everyone who believes that without true morals life is not worth living must fight with every peaceful and legal means to reverse this situation.
There’s much talk about “persecuted minorities” today. What we are witnessing with the homosexual agenda is the emergence of ultra-organized minorities with powerful allies in the media, the courts and the other two branches of government, who are thus becoming “persecuting minorities.”
God Will Not be Mocked
The last decade has seen great advances by the homosexual movement in its efforts to force societal acceptance of the homosexual act. The apostle Saint Paul reminds us though that “God will not be mocked” (Gal. 6:7). Sooner or later, His glory will require that He intervene, righting so many wrongs and putting an end to the public and official exaltation of sin.
In Fatima, Our Lady warned mankind of an impending chastisement if it did not turn back to God.
By engaging energetically and effectively, peacefully and legally in this struggle, we can heed the Blessed Mother’s maternal warning, recognize and correct our failings, and rightly be “one nation under God.”
The choice is ours.
We have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Footnotes1. Judge Walker defines marriage as follows: “[M]arriage is ‘a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life.’” Aug. 4, 2010 ruling on Perry v. SchwarneggerI, p. 13 # 9-13, at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf. [back]
2. Paul Belien, “First Trio ‘Married’ in The Netherlands,” on Tue, 2005-09-27 00:08, http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301; Alexander Colen, “The War against Marriage and Men” on Mon, 2005-12-19 22:07 http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/585. [back]
3. In the article “Transgender Marriage,” at etransgender.com we read: “Some people are aware that transgender individuals are often able to enter into a heterosexual marriage after undergoing sex-reassignment. What may be less well-known, however, is that a transgender person may also be married to a person of the same sex.” http://etransgender.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=74#ixzz0waWfJMx3. [back]
4. “[T]hird grade students in Cordoba, located in the southern Spanish region of Andalusia, are using course material stating that “nature has given us sex so we can use it with another girl, with a boy or with an animal.” (http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=26760); cf. Jesse Bering, Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality, Mar 24, 2010 05:23 PM, in Mind & Brain | 124 comments, at http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=animal-lovers-zoophiles-make-scient-2010-03-24. [back]
5. According to Ed Whelan, a specialist in constitutional law, “nearly all of plaintiffs’ ‘experts’ are political activists for gay causes and that many or most are in same-sex relationships”; Ed Whelan, , Aug. 4, 2010 6:15 PM, http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/242523/judge-walker-s-opinion-ed-whelan. [back]
6. Ruling, p. 17, # 16-19; # 27-28. (Our emphases.) [back]
7. Ruling, Finding of Fact no. 76, p. 98. (Our emphases.) [back]
8. Cf. For example, Trayce Hansen, Ph.D., “Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children” (May/June 2009 issue of The Therapist, a publication of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists — CAMFT) at http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_notinthebest.html; A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. MBA, MPH, Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree, http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html; Ed Whelan, Walker’s Gender Follies, Aug. 13, 2010 2:14 PM, http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/243690. [back]
9. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us-epi-future-courses.htm (Our emphases.) [back]
10. http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/prcc08_mfspeech_020808. (Our emphases.) [back]
11. “[I]mitation occurs naturally without outside stimulus or reward. In a child’s early years, an enormous amount of learning is done through imitation of parents, peers, and modeling based on other stimuli, such as television.” (Imitation, Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 2001) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0001/ai_2699000174/. [back]
12. Cf. Trayce Hansen, Ph.D., “Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings:
Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality,” http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_prohomo.html. [back]
13. Ruling, p. 101, # 8-10. (Our emphases.) [back]
14. Ruling, p. 109, # 16-17. (Our emphases.) [back]
15. Ruling, p. 135, #15. (Our emphases.) [back]
16. Ruling, p. 132, # 5-7. (Our emphases.) [back]
17. Revolution and Counter-Revolution, at http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/books/revolution-and-counter-revolution.html. [back]
18. “Plaintiffs’ experts [opposed to Prop. 8] testified that no meaningful differences exist between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples.” Ruling, p. 16, # 3-5 (Our emphasis). “Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive.” Ruling, Finding of Fact no. 50, p. 79. [back]
19. Cf. Ruling, pp. 98-101. [back]
20. Cf. Ruling, p. 109, # 16-17. [back]
21. “Hence this is the first precept of law, that ‘good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.’ All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as man’s good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.” (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 94, Art. 1). [back]
22. “Dogmatic and morals are nothing but parts of a sole theological science.... While dogmatic theology considers the truths of a speculative nature and is ordered toward their contemplation, moral theology considers the truths of a practical nature and is ordered to action.” Antonio Lanza-Pietro Palazzini, Principios de Teologia Moral (Madrid: Ediciones Rialp, 1958), Vol. I, p. 19. [back]
23. Cf. “ADF to Appeal Ruling that Allows Eastern Michigan U. to Expel Julea Ward for Believing Homosexuality Is Wrong” http://americansfortruth.com/news/adf-to-appeal-julea-ward-ruling.html; Marc D. Stern, “Will gay rights trample religious freedom?” http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/17/opinion/oe-stern17/2; Hilary White and, John Jalsevac, “UK Man Convicted after Trying to Stop Homosexual Sex in Public with Video Camera” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060303.html. “Massachusetts Man Fired for Telling Colleague that Homosexual Behavior Is Wrong” http://americaneedsfatima.blogspot.com/2009/11/massachusetts-man-fired-for-telling.html. [back]