Gay Marriage, in Today's News 01.13.10

Gay Marriage. Today's media theme for the gay marriage case in San Francisco federal court is that the judge is "quirky," having an "unconventional approach", and "libertarian leaning."

The obvious goal here is to portray Judge Walker as independent and unbiased. His pro-gay-marriage decision therefore would have all-the-greater authority. Because the cryptocracy wants to use this trial to settle the debate over gay marriage, they are pulling all the stops to make sure the final decision is as authoritative and definitive as possible.

The media is almost conscious of their role in this. Here's a quote from the WSJ on the judge's decision on the evidence to be allowed, "While many of the judge's decisions to include far-reaching evidence in the case may seem odd...they could increase the likelihood that the court's decision stands in the long run." [Emphasis added.]

A bad omen occurred on the first day of the trial when Walker "repeatedly asked the lawyers: Why don't states 'get out of the marriage business? It would solve the problem.'" [Quote is from today's Wall Street Journal.]

Were the 'states to get out of the marriage business' it would mean that anyone and everyone could and would issue marriage licenses or certificates. Churches, community groups, private businesses, professional associations all could get in on the act. 

Such a free-for-all would in actuality mean no marriage at all because there would be no standards and no regulation. Marriage could therefore be defined any way anyone wanted.

In other words, Walker's proposal leads to exactly the situation that gay marriage would lead to: marriage meaning nothing at all.

Another bad omen on the first day of the trial: Judge Walker made clear that he doesn't think procreation has anything to do with the legitimacy of marriage. He told of a marriage of a 95-year-old and an 83-year-old, saying "I did not demand that they prove they intended to engage in procreation." In other words Walker is searching for examples and precedents that show that the traditional view of marriage doesn't stand up even today.

Opponents of gay marriage need to be aware of the trap that is being set up in this trial. A way has to be found to explain to the world that the fix is in and that the cryptocracy goal in the trial is to finish-off the issue. The lawyers in the case obviously can't say these things without undermining their standing in the court. But there are plenty of pro-family organizations who could and ought to make the point.

Beware of this trial. Broaden the fight against gay marriage beyond the legal front where the cause can get easily trapped.

Gay Marriage, in Today's News 01.12.10

Gay Marriage. The opponents of gay marriage would be well-advised not to put all their eggs in the basket of the US District Court case in San Francisco on California's Proposition 8.

The federal trial is a carefully contrived endeavor to end the controversy over gay marriage once and for all. The idea is to air all the arguments pro and con in a very public manner, and then render a decisive opinion in favor of gay marriage ratified by the US Supreme Court. The aim of the cryptocracy is to end the disputes over gay marriage and get on with the project to destroy western, Christian culture.

The judge in the case appears to understand his role. He went so far as to rule that the trial proceedings were to be broadcast over closed-circuit television to federal courthouses and to be posted on YouTube. The US Supreme Court had to call him to order by ruling that the broadcast could not occur. After all the idea is to promote the settling of the issue, not provoke a nation-wide debate in every major city.

And, by the way, how did the judge know that the other federal courthouses were amenable to the idea? And how did the Supreme Court get so involved so quickly in the issue? Big stakes indeed are involved here.

A good indication that the fix is in is that one of the principle attorneys for gay marriage is Theodore Olson. Olson was the solicitor general for the Bush administration. His wife was killed in 911, but before that she was a regular and consistent conservative voice on the talk show circuit. One would normally expect Olson therefore to be a defender of marriage. But as a loyal servant of the cryptocracy he is lending his authority to the cause of gay marriage. Such a presumed switch in position ought to help make the final pro-gay-marriage decision all the more decisive. 

Another indication is location of the trial in San Francisco, the capital of the gay lifestyle.

The battle to turn back gay marriage has to be a broad social struggle. A very public and ambitious drive by the Church for recruits would help tremendously, as would a nation-wide rosary and prayer campaign to ask God for help.

The pro-marriage forces need to be alert to avoiding the trap of letting the San Francisco trial become the event that definitively decides the issue.

Gay Marriage, in Today's News 01.09.10

Gay Marriage. The Wall Street Journal today has a opinion piece titled "Washington, Gay Marriage and the Catholic Church." The point of the article seems to be to convince the Church not to do anything foolish now that the DC City Council has passed legislation legalizing gay marriage.

"By passing gay marriage, the City Council has put...the Archdiocese of Washington, in an awkward position. Either the church will have to recognize gay marriage or it will be forced to abandon a large portion of its charitable programs."

The article has the following advice to the Archdiocese, "...follow in the footsteps of Gerogetown University, the District's largest Catholic organization. There, an employee, whether gay or straight, married or not, receives full benefits for himself plus one legally domiciled member of his or her household. This would allow the archdiocese to save face by pretending it isn't knowingly recognizing gay marriage."

This gambit of placing the Church in this position has occurred in a number of places, most notably the United Kingdom. It seems to be one of the favored tactics to discredit and weaken the Church.

Will the Archdiocese take the WSJ advice and duck the whole issue? Time will tell. The history up to now has not been so great. The Archdiocese only provided "polite" opposition to the proposed legislation. "The archdiocese was not a particularly strong advocate against gay marriage in the District, but it did press for a religious exemption to be added to the same-sex marriage bill." Of course, the request for the exemption lost.

Had the Church leaders provided a principled and very public opposition complete with an educational effort on what gay marriage means to the future of the Church and country, things might be different now. The Church leaders also failed to mobilize the faithful to lobby and to prayer.

In short the Archdiocese leaders response to this deliberate provocation of the Church was pathetic; completely pathetic. 

And so, now, the Archdiocese will have to pay the consequences. It is in a lose-lose situation. And it has made itself vulnerable to pressure from the civil authorities to make nice and play along, quietly sweeping the Church's teaching under the rug.

One wonders how many times the Church will be kicked around before the Church hierarchy gets the message that there are very strong forces out there who want to destroy the Church, and that they had better do something a little more decisive to stop the attacks.