Live Blog Archive
Maggie: Ted Olson’s Answers to Judge Walker’s Question About Religion
Walker asked:
If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding?
Olson and Boies respond:
The evidence at trial established that the LDS and Roman Catholic churches played an instrumental role in the passage of Prop. 8. See, e.g., Segura, Tr. 1609:12-1610:6 (The coalition between the Catholic Church and the LDS Church against a minority group was “unprecedented.”); Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document686 Filed06/15/10 Page16 of 44
. . . They produced and funded campaign messages in support of Prop. 8, which stated and implied that same-sex relationships are immoral. See Doc # 608-1 at 250- 68 (PFFs 287-93). Moral disapproval of gay and lesbian individuals, however, is not a legitimate government interest. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 577 (“the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice”); see also Response to Question A.2, supra. Indeed, the Supreme Court “acknowledged” in Lawrence that, “for centuries[,] there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives.” 539 U.S. at 571. “These considerations,” however, did “not answer the question before” the Court in Lawrence. Id. “Our obligation,” the Court explained, “is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Prop. 8 was an attempt to enforce private moral beliefs about a disfavored minority—and does not further any legitimate state interest—it is unconstitutional.
Translation: Religous Americans with traditional views of marriage and/or sexual morality have no right to organize or vote to advance their beliefs. The value of "equality" can be imposed by the people who believe that same-sex unions are marriages, but the idea that marriage is a union of male and female because children should have the love and care of their mom and dad is VERBOTEN.
Of all the ideas Olson is advancing, this is the most radical: First exclude religious people from democratic polity and then do democracy with the folks who remain.
Comments
Chris
June 16, 2010
1:21 pm