[/caption]
Editor - Some religious leaders believe when U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California’s Proposition 8 on Wednesday (Aug. 4), he was taking away faith views from the public.
In forming his decision Walker said the voters had a clear motivation for outlawing gay marriage. “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,” Walker wrote, in a decision that took 136 pages. “These interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting Proposition 8.”
Religion, in Walker’s reasoning, amounts to a “private moral view,”which should not infringe upon the constitutional rights of others. Walker's decision, however, does not sway religious leaders from their view about the law.
“Judge Walker claimed to read the minds of California’s voters, arguing that the majority voted for Proposition 8 based on religious opposition to homosexuality, which he then rejected as an illegitimate state interest,” R. Albert Mohler, president of a leading Southern Baptist
seminary in Kentucky, wrote in an online column.
seminary in Kentucky, wrote in an online column.
“In essence, this establishes secularism as the only acceptable basis for moral judgment on the part of voters,” Mohler said.
Prop 8’s supporters filed an appeal of Walker’s decision on Thursday.
“At bottom, our strategy here is, and has always been, that in this country we should respect the rights of the people when they do what they have
always done: vote based on their religious and moral convictions,” maintained Jim Campbell, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a
conservative Christian law firm involved in the litigation. He said the religious freedom argument will play an important role as the case
moves up through the courts, likely to the Supreme Court.
always done: vote based on their religious and moral convictions,” maintained Jim Campbell, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a
conservative Christian law firm involved in the litigation. He said the religious freedom argument will play an important role as the case
moves up through the courts, likely to the Supreme Court.
Campbell argued. “To be blunt, we felt (Walker’s decision) was an all-out attack on religion.”
Walker did note, however, that no religion will be forced to perform same-sex weddings.
Howard Friedman, an emeritus law professor at Ohio’s University of Toledo, said Walker is not attacking religion per se; he is just not giving
religious expression any special consideration.
religious expression any special consideration.
“He’s basically saying that a private moral view isn’t a rational basis for legislation,” said Friedman, who writes the popular “Religion Clause”
blog. “Case law goes both ways on that. There are certainly some cases that say a merely moral view isn’t enough to support legislation; on the
other hand, there are some cases that talk about laws being a moral view on society.”
blog. “Case law goes both ways on that. There are certainly some cases that say a merely moral view isn’t enough to support legislation; on the
other hand, there are some cases that talk about laws being a moral view on society.”
Walker devotes several pages that substantiate his decision about religion as a primary motivation in the anti-gay Proposition 8. He pointed to
examples from the Vatican and the Southern Baptist Convention, observing how 84 percent of weekly churchgoers voted in favor of Prop 8,
according to a CNN exit poll.
examples from the Vatican and the Southern Baptist Convention, observing how 84 percent of weekly churchgoers voted in favor of Prop 8,
according to a CNN exit poll.
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony released a statement on Wednesday that said, “Those of us who supported Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reason: We truly believe that marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God’s plan for the world and human society. Period.”This seems to support the Judge's contention.
Still, some religious leaders take issue with Walker’s conclusion that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to
heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
“If religion is considered the chief obstacle to gay and lesbian political progress, then it would seem to follow that the state has an obligation to remove
that obstacle,” said R.R. Reno, a senior editor at First Things, a Catholic journal based in New York.
that obstacle,” said R.R. Reno, a senior editor at First Things, a Catholic journal based in New York.
“That’s not going to happen, because the First Amendment protects religious expression,” but it could lead to a sidelining of faith in political
debate, Reno said, Religious News Service quoted her as saying.
debate, Reno said, Religious News Service quoted her as saying.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says Walker is wrong on the law and the church’s theology. The Roman Catholic Church holds that homosexuality is not sinful in itself, but that homosexual acts are.
“Freedom of religion and freedom of speech allow us to speak without his deeming us harmful,” Walsh said. “Our teaching is our teaching.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Say something constructive. Negative remarks and name-calling are not allowed.