I just wonder what is the age of California's Chief Justice Vaughn Walker, a US judge who in the name of equality ruled that California's constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman was unconstitutional and had "no rational basis" because it excluded same-sex unions.
In making the decision, the Chief Justice has taken upon himself the task of defining marriage based on the faulty logic that marriage is defined by any committed relationship.
Marriage is not a mere form of relationship such as a friendship or a business partnership. Nor is it the legalisation of a passion. It is a mutual self-giving between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Even if, for a number of reasons, this union may not result in children, it still is the only institution that allows children to grow naturally and be raised in normal conditions for their psychological and moral development.
According to Mr Justice Walker, traditional marriage is "nothing more than an artefact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfil different roles in civic life". In dismissing any other criteria than equality, the judge denies the notion of this august union in its present form through natural law, for the perpetuation of the species that has been around since the beginning.
The ruling unmasks how the homosexual movement's promotion of same-sex "marriage" deprives marriage of its rational end, belittles a higher moral law and disregards the majority of California who hold marriage to be sacred. This definition, which will now be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, should be rejected.
This requires some answer back... anyone with some good arguments to volunteer?
ReplyDelete