Mr. Buchanan on the Walker Decision

---

Here's another one for which I took notes several days ago. My own thoughts at the bottom are several days old, as well.

---

I really would have you go read the whole thing. Eventually, I'll get 'round to putting down more of my own thoughts on the subject. At least I hope I will. There's about a bajillion things I want to get 'round to writing up.

Any emphasis in the following is mine:

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker is truly a visionary.

Peering at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.

[snip]

If the Walker decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, homosexual marriage will be imposed on a nation where, in 31 out of 31 state referenda, the people have rejected it as an absurdity.

This is not just judicial activism. This is judicial tyranny.

[snip]

Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been "biases" and "moral disapproval," and "moral disapproval ... has never been a rational basis for legislation."

But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest? What else was the basis for the Mann Act, which prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel?

What is the basis for prohibiting prostitution, a free exchange of money for sexual favors, if not "moral disapproval"?

[snip]

But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

Walker may call such pairings marriages, but that does not make it so. As Lincoln said, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," said the judge.

He is calling opponents of gay marriage irrational.

This is not just an insult to the intelligence of those Californians who have rejected gay marriage, but to a majority of Americans.

[snip]

Up to today, Walker is the only federal judge to see in same-sex marriage a constitutional right. And what is the origin of this right? Supporters of Walker's decision cite the Declaration of Independence about our "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

But that same declaration says we were endowed with those rights by our Creator. When did the Creator indicate that among these rights was for homosexuals to have their unions recognized as marriages?

The author of that declaration, Thomas Jefferson, equated homosexual acts with rape and wrote that male homosexuals (they used the term sodomites in that time) should be castrated and lesbians should have a hole cut into their noses.

[snip]

...Walker's personal opinion.

But he is declaring it to be the only rational conclusion that can be reached. And having reached it, he has seized upon a phrase in the 14th amendment, "equal protection," distorted its meaning and dictated that this means his view and his values henceforth are the law in California, the voters be damned.

Ultimately, most people's opinion on this subject will turn upon whether they believe homosexual orientation to be something you are born with, or a choice--a choice conditioned by events in one's upbringing or other events, no doubt, but a choice nonetheless.

I fall into the latter camp. I hold that if you try to make a case for homosexuality being an inborn genetic trait, you also inadvertently make the same case for pedophilia, bestiality, porn addiction, serial adultery, foot fetishes, and so forth. That is, there is no argument that I have heard for homosexuals being "born that way" that could not also be applied with equal facility to the other sexual issues I have just mentioned. Likewise, if you reject the idea--on whatever grounds--that the pedophile is "born that way," I think that you have similar grounds for rejecting the idea that homosexuals are doomed to their particular perversion as an accident of birth.

I am not trying to say here that I think I am better than the homosexual on a moral level. I don't think there are more than a handful of people on the planet who aren't guilty of some sort of sexual immorality, even if it's just lusting after people you're not married to, which Jesus declared to be the equivalent of adultery (I trust I am not over-paraphrasing His words). Personally, I have little interest in legislating homosexuality out of existence for the simple reason that historically, it has never succeeded, and one's efforts appear to be better spent on evangelism and education. If they are willing to leave the children alone and not recruit them (You do realize that actively recruiting others is the only way the homosexual community can stay in existence, don't you? They sure as thunder can't reproduce...), I'm willing to leave them alone. But I draw the line at being forced, under color of law, to call two shacked-up homosexuals "married" or not to speak my mind about the morality of the whole thing (which is not a contradiction to "I'm willing to leave them alone;" if they tell me they don't want to hear it, I respect that), which is, based on what has gone on overseas, where this is all ultimately headed.