Proposition 8 Appeal Based On Moral/Religious Grounds
On August 30 Robert Wooten Asked the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to allow him to submit an Amicus Brief in support of "traditional marriage"
. His appeal is comical and a little sad.
Does he have standing to be heard in the Proposition 8 appeal being considered by the 9th US Circuit Court of appeals? He seems to feel that every citizen of the state has legal standing in this case.
In his brief Mr. Wooten says that the court cannot refuse to consider his appeal by saying he does not have legal standing in the case. He explains that view by saying that "Homosexuality is a moral issue that transcends the personal desires of the plaintiffs and significantly affects the lives of all residents of the state (of California) to the extent that it becomes a public interest issue which negates the requirement of standing in the issue." In other words all Californians have standing.
Wooten also says the federal judge that ruled that proposition 8 is unconstitutional (Judge Vaughn Walker) should probably have recused himself and let some other judge hear the case.
He says, "If the allegations that Judge Walker is a homosexual is true, then he has a personal interest in the outcome of the trial that he was over-seeing and, at least, should have recused himself from the trial."
And yet, as noted above, Mr. Wooten thinks Homosexuality affects the lives of all residents of the state. Thus, to be consistent, he would have to claim that no judge should try the case.
Mr Wooten goes on to say that, with very limited exceptions, the US constitution "does not concern itself with civil rights." He seems to be saying that a court cannot rule that proposition 8 violates rights guaranteed by the US constitution because that constitution does not guarantee civil rights.
Then Mr. Wooten says that marriage is defined "in the cannon of scripture commonly called the Bible ... which h is beyond the reach of the court for adjudication." He seems to be saying that the Bible defined marriage as between a man and a woman and no earthly authority can permit any other type of couple to use the title marriage.
Apparently, to strengthen that point, he says the oath that the US Constitution requires "officers of the United States" to take, implicitly recognizes the existence of a Supreme Being. He seems to be saying,
1. There is a Supreme Being
2. In the oath that they take, federal judges accept the supremacy of that Supreme Being.
3. That Supreme Being has defined marriage as being limited to a man and a woman.
4. Because of 1. And 2. above judges are powerless to let anyone else claim to be married.
As I said above, all of this is a bit comical. However, the sad fact is that large numbers who oppose same sex marriage probably agree with most or all of the above.
You may see a copy of Mr. Wooten's statement by clicking on the following link and then clicking on the link at the bottom of the web based copy of this newsflash. Here is the link to start with:
http://www.calcomui.org/nwsflsh091710.html
Boyce Hinman
California Communities United Institute
Proposition 8 Appeal Based On Moral/Religious Grounds
By: Boyce Hinman
Fanning Religious Flames All About Cleaning Religious Artifacts The Importance Of Seo Ethics Why Respect The Religious Beliefs Of Others? Return to Religious Foundations the Only Hope for the Country Religious Leaders Pledge For Equality For People Living With Hiv (plhiv) The Religious Experience In Antarctica Mapping Religious Affiliation In The Glasgow Region Baptism Invitation And Baptismal Invitations For Your Religious Invites The Religious And Mental Preparation To Become An Effective Apologist The Nursing Ethics Code - What does it Mean for Me? Personalised gifts are perfect for any religious occasions The Importance Of SEO Ethics