Guz Bonett, Marsalforn
Flawed ruling on same-sex marriage
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.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
29 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
yana micallef stafrace
Aug 31st 2010, 18:00
He's pushing 70.
D Vella
Aug 31st 2010, 18:06
in which case,that makes him a wise old man and refreshingly not bigoted.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 31st 2010, 14:14
Why does Bonnett wonder about the age of the judge? How relevant is that? Nobody is saying that marriage is like friendship or partnership. The "mutual giving" of one to the other is not the prerogative of heterosexuals. The talk about natural law and perpetuation of the species has no relevance whatsoever. And what is so morally high with a heterosexual relationship? At least higher than that of a homosexual relationship. Majorities are funny things and I am old enough to know that majorities change over time. Judges have a right and duty to diminish prejudice wjherever it is. What you are proposing is heterosexism. Get over it. The world has changed. Sadly Marsalforn is not the best place to monitor this change.
Karl Consiglio
Aug 31st 2010, 14:13
Try having this discussion with Sir Elton John when he comes to Malta
Claire Busuttil
Sep 1st 2010, 00:17
the gay & lesbian community in malta should team up, with the producers of Elton John`s concert, and try to make him, speak about his experience, or maybe, `use` his powerful image, for some sort of campaign,
Christopher Ripard
Aug 31st 2010, 14:12
Well said, Mr Bonett! It naturally follows that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children either.
Franco Farrugia
Aug 31st 2010, 16:09
I agree with you. Gays should 'naturally' not be allowed to adopt children either, so that said children will be adopted by 'normal' couples who would then do their best to abuse them, in all sorts of ways, and raise them up to be yet more Guz Bonetts and Christoper Ripards! Oh, what a life!
Christopher Ripard
Sep 1st 2010, 10:44
Hey Franco! Modesty apart, they could do worse!
The point is, that they have no 'natural' right to raise children they can't produce. It's like you saying that you have a 'natural' right to give birth to children. You don't, because nature didn't give you the equipment. Similarly, homos can never have natural offspring and any they raise would be raised unnaturally.
Simples no? (a' la meerkat)
George Caruana
Aug 31st 2010, 12:51
Such rulings have a purely legal civil premise, and (luckily for them) nothing else matters in this context. What is morally right or wrong is not pertinent, as long as the acts of one or more persons do not infringe on the basic rights of others, such as their life, property, and freedoms. This is what makes USA the greatest nation on Earth.
Karl Consiglio
Aug 31st 2010, 12:32
Guz Bonett
"to grow naturally and in normal circumstances"
One adjusts to the conditions he or she has been brought uo in as being the norm, its for no conservative system to get in the way of that, marriages and the reasons for them are private matters.
Being brough up with homosexual parents don't necessarily mean the child will grow to be homosexual too, just as its not guaranteed that being brought up by a husband and wife, in your "normal" sense means the child will be straight/heterosexual..
The most important thing is love
John Pace
Aug 31st 2010, 16:42
Karl Consiglio for homosexuals and lesbians it is not love but sex
S. Zammit
Aug 31st 2010, 17:46
I believe that it's the influence of the parents that matters most in raising of a child. The likelihood is that heterosexual parents have heterosexual children, and that homosexual parents have homosexual children. Simply put there are exceptions to this "rule", and that is why there are homosexuals from heterosexuals, just as only with an exception to the "rule" can homosexuals have heterosexual children.
Stefan Vella
Aug 31st 2010, 18:22
"Karl Consiglio for homosexuals and lesbians it is not love but sex" @John Pace I apologise but I do have to question your references when uttering a statement like that? Are you one of them? Have you got a personal experience that you would like to share with us?
John Pace
Aug 31st 2010, 23:21
Stefan Vella I happen to know a few of them. That's your reference.
Claire Busuttil
Sep 1st 2010, 00:11
@John Pace- I think you made a very negative comment.
Carmel Zammit
Aug 31st 2010, 11:46
A homosexual or lesbian couple living together can never be called a marriage. Call it a union or whatever but it can never be called a marriage. If you don't fit the equation you cannot change the equation to fit you.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 31st 2010, 14:22
Great to read that marriage is little more than an equation!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So why are conservatives making such a fuss about it.
Michael Zerafa
Aug 31st 2010, 16:41
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti because liberals are trying to change the equation to suit them.
Lynn Zahra
Aug 31st 2010, 11:34
@Mr.Bonnett
1. whose authority are you citing which states unequivocally that "marriage is the only union in which children are allowed to grow naturally?"
2. The Californian judge based his decision on the Law, which does not say that marriage is only for people of different sexes and therefore, not to allow these marriages is to discriminate against same sex couples. Tough I know , but there you have it.
This most brave of judges had the guts to point out the unpalitable : that legal decisions must be based on what the Law says, and not on a what the majority say in a referendum .
Because true democracy is not Majority rule as many erronously think. True democracy provides for the needs of minorities as well.
Joseph Calleja
Aug 31st 2010, 14:59
Ms Zahra, What happened to the The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln
... under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. ...
OF THE PEOPLE,
BY THE PEOPLE,
FOR THE PEOPLE
That is what the United States is all about and nowhere does it say that one person can decide for all. The people have spoken and one person (judge) has no right to overturn a referendum and that is why this whole thing will end up in the Supreme Court.. Besides marriage is between a man and a woman not between Carmnu u Leli. Maybe civil union might be a better choice word. But that is only my humble opinion.
Lynn Zahra
Aug 31st 2010, 17:20
@Joseph Calleja.
The European Convention 's raison d'etre was to curb abuse of individual rights.
Check out what I said. The judge adhered to the LAW and rightly , in my view ignored what the majority wanted.
If the Majority don't want to observe the law , does that mean that they should get their way?
There was a case like this in the 70s. Mons.Philip Calleja wanted to express his disapproval at Civil marriages and put up a placard with his hands during the festa's procession. Some peoople accused him of trying to disrupt the procession and the Police made him put the placard away , fearing the crowd might beat up the priest.
The Court decided that in appeasing the crowd, the Police had breached Mons.Calleja's right to freedom of expression. The law is there to protect and His right existed independently of what the Majority, the crowd wanted.
Joseph Calleja
Aug 31st 2010, 18:58
Ms Zahra you are more efficient in the law than I am. My question is. Why bother putting it on the ballot at all if the outcome is not going to matter? Is this what they call bzar fl-ghajnejn?
Franco Farrugia
Aug 31st 2010, 11:11
Yeah, sure! Let the Chief Justice of the State of California send for Guz Bonett of Marsalforn in Gozo, Republic of Malta, to tell him all about what constitutes marriage!
Richard Curmi
Aug 31st 2010, 13:56
So what if Mr Guz Bonett lives in Marsalforn and comes from the Republic of Malta, are insuating that we are an inferior race by an chance and cannot even have our say on what constitutes a marriage.
This Chief justice is a practising gay himself, so it was somewhat easy for him to come to this ruling.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 31st 2010, 14:21
@ Richard Curmi - So what if the Chief Justice is a "praticisng gay" as you put it? Would you have made this observation if the Chief Justice were a "practising heterosexual"? Are we gays to be excluded from decisions that affect us? And don't talk to me about hetersexuals and what they think. I know far too many heterosexuals who are in favour of gay marriage. Maltese and Gozitans are not an inferior race but many of them still suffer from a seige mentality. Malta and Gozo are not the best places to see the world go by. Sadly many if not most Maltese Australians still have a strong dose of a seige mentality.
Franco Farrugia
Aug 31st 2010, 16:06
@ Richard Curmi - I doubt that the Judges in the USA, or any other judges, would be as prejudiced at the cases in front of them, as you are prejudiced against homosexuality in today's age. May I suggest that you get a life, and try crawling out of the cave you're in, as fast as possible? Life is cheating you, mate.
And .... as to your point of Malta being an inferior race, ... well, Malta is no 'race', as you put it, ... and ... reading your comment and learning how intelligent you are and up-to-date, well ... please don't let me answer your question!
Richard Curmi
Aug 31st 2010, 17:40
@Joseph Carmel Chetcuti,
Siege mentality??? maybe there still are a few around that still do not except gays, however the majority of us have absolutly no problem with homosexuals, however when the subject turns to marriage between same sex couples, then that is going out of equation my dear. No, for most of us that is not acceptable. you can lambast me as much as you like, you will never convince of that, and that is not siege mentality, that is normal thinking. And by the way , me and my wife have quite a few homosexuals as friends since we were young,, most are down to earth and except that marraige between same sex couples is a little far fetched. They are happy coexisting without trying to impose their too liberal feelings on others.
Franco Farrugia
Aug 31st 2010, 18:48
@ Richard Curmi, again: 'me and my wife have quite a few homosexuals as friends since we were young,, ...They are happy coexisting without trying to impose their too liberal feelings on others.' 'Happy coexisting' ... oh yes, they must be very lucky, to have friends like yourself! 'without trying to impose their too liberal feelings on others'. And you, aren't you imposing your too conservative and disgustingly homophobic feelings on others?
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 31st 2010, 23:03
@ Richard Curmi. "maybe there still are a few around that still do not except gays, however the majority of us have absolutly no problem with homosexuals, however when the subject turns to marriage between same sex couples, then that is going out of equation my dear." Answer - your prejudice is obvious for all to see and I am not "your dear". You do not speak for any majority, heterosexual or homosexual.
"No, for most of us that is not acceptable. you can lambast me as much as you like, you will never convince of that, and that is not siege mentality, that is normal thinking." Answer: classify it as you want, it is still prejudice. I would not waste my time trying to convice people of your type.
"And by the way , me and my wife have quite a few homosexuals as friends ... most are down to earth and except that marraige between same sex couples is a little far fetched. They are happy coexisting without trying to impose their too liberal feelings on others. " I ask - so you only like compliant gay men and lesbians?