Athiest Feminist Obsessed with Mormon Housewife Blogs

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/01/15/feminist_obsessed_with_mormon_blogs

LDS Church Responds to HRC Petition

OCT 12 2010 — SALT LAKE CITY

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement through a spokesman following the delivery of a petition by the Human Rights Campaign:

My name is Michael Otterson. I am here representing the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to address the matter of the petition presented today by the Human Rights Campaign. 

While we disagree with the Human Rights Campaign on many fundamentals, we also share some common ground. This past week we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men.  We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason.  Such actions simply have no place in our society.

This Church has felt the bitter sting of persecution and marginalization early in our history, when we were too few in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society’s leaders often seemed disinclined to help.  Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment - to love one another.

As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel.  His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.

Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.

The Church’s doctrine is based on love. We believe that our purpose in life is to learn, grow and develop, and that God’s unreserved love enables each of us to reach our potential. None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves.

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation.

There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle. Those in the Church who are attracted to someone of the same sex but stay faithful to the Church’s teachings can be happy during this life and perform meaningful service in the Church. They can enjoy full fellowship with other Church members, including attending and serving in temples, and ultimately receive all the blessings afforded to those who live the commandments of God.

Obviously, some will disagree with us. We hope that any disagreement will be based on a full understanding of our position and not on distortion or selective interpretation. The Church will continue to speak out to ensure its position is accurately understood.

God’s universal fatherhood and love charges each of us with an innate and reverent acknowledgement of our shared human dignity.  We are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one another. 

We hope and firmly believe that within this community, and in others, kindness, persuasion and goodwill can prevail.

Obama omits Our Creator

Morning Bell: What the Left Doesn’t Understand About America

Posted October 20th, 2010 at 9:24am

Monday night in Rockville, Md., President Barack Obama told Democratic Senate candidate donors: “As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”

At first blush, that seems like a fine statement about what makes America exceptional. But look at President Obama’s “quote” from the Declaration of Independence again. Here is what the Declaration actually says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If you think that President Obama’s abandonment of the Creator was an accident, think again. Monday was the third time in a little over a month that President Obama wrote the Creator out of one of our nation’s founding documents. He omitted the exact same phrase at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 33rd Annual Awards Gala on September 15 and again at a September 23 fundraiser in New York City.

Remember this is the same President who admonished “small towns in Pennsylvania” and “a lot of small towns in the Midwest” because they “get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion.” And the President is not alone. MSNBC’s new “Lean Forward” Progressive Movement branding campaign also leaves out “by their Creator” from their reading of the Declaration. Again, this is no accident. Writing faith in God out of the public sphere allows and encourages Big Government to replace it. The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Messmore explains:

Government power is inherently limited by the role of other social institutions, such as families, religious congregations, schools, and businesses. The rightful authority of these institutions helps to check the authority of the state. … As government claims responsibility for more tasks, it absorbs the allegiance that citizens once placed in other relationships and forms of association. When the federal government assumes more responsibility for fulfilling the moral obligations among citizens, it tends to undermine the perceived significance and authority of local institutions and communities.

This encourages citizens, instead of looking to their families, churches, or local communities for guidance and assistance, to depend on the government for education, welfare, and various other services. As individuals begin to look more consistently to the government for support, the institutions that are able to generate virtues like trust and responsibility begin to lose their sway in the community. Excessive bureaucratic centralization thus sets in motion a dangerous cycle of dependence and social decay.

For far too long the American people have allowed the Progressive Movement to read out of existence the checks that America’s Founders placed on government in our founding documents. That is why The Heritage Foundation is now distributing a series of pamphlets titled “Understanding America” that explores how the United States’ commitment to the universal truths of human equality and the right to self-government—as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—requires a vigilant defense of the cause of liberty, both at home and abroad. In the first volume, Heritage’s Matthew Spalding writes:

America’s principles establish religious liberty as a fundamental right. It is in our nature to pursue our convictions of faith. Government must not establish an official religion, just as it must guarantee the free exercise of religion. Indeed, popular government requires a flourishing of religious faith. If a free people are to govern themselves politically, they must first govern themselves morally.

The United States did not grow from a small thirteen colonies to a vast 50 states that produce almost a quarter of the world’s wealth due to an all powerful federal government. It was American civil society, led by families, churches, businesses, communities and associations that built this country. According to the latest Gallup poll, 58% of Americans believe that “the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses.” Contrast that with President Obama who recently told a Democratic campaign rally in Philadelphia, the very place where the Declaration of Independence was signed, that the United States Chamber of Commerce was “a threat to our democracy.” With all due respect to the President, the American people have a much different view of where the threat to our democracy is coming from.

I am VERY inspired by this blog

(Gay) Mormon Guy

I'm a stalwart member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints. I'm also attracted to men.
Which means life is extra tough. 

Thursday

President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective

President Packer had only spoken for a few seconds before I knew there would be backlash. Everything he said was directly applicable to me... and to my brothers and sisters who live with same-sex attraction. As I listened to his talk, I was torn in two ways. I knew his message was true. But most members of the Church who live with same-sex attraction don't need fire and brimstone. They already know that acting on their temptations is wrong... and they respond much better to hope, love, and support in order to gain the faith to change. In the moment, I, like thousands of others, felt like President Packer was telling me I just hadn't tried hard enough. That I wasn't good enough. And while I knew from the Spirit that those were not his intentions, I could already guess how the rest of the world - who heard the talk without the guidance of the Spirit - would react.

The reaction was immediate and vehement, from all corners of the world and seemingly every walk of life. From the Church and without. From men, women, family members, and hundreds of others. Some simply disagreed with his statements; others wished for violence to befall him. Everyone seemed up in arms.

I just re-read President Packer's talk from General Conference. As I read, I noticed something interesting. President Packer was a professional teacher. His talks are meticulously formatted to have opening, supporting, and closing sections that build on one another. In recent years, he has meandered a bit, but there's still a format.

In his opening remarks, President Packer talks about the importance of the family, the powers of procreation, and foreshadows to the rest of his talk:

"To be entrusted with the power to create life carries with it the greatest of joys and dangerous temptations."

So obviously he's going to be talking about pornography, adultery, fornication, and homosexual relations. That's all covered in the dangerous temptations. However, the main theme of his talk is pornography, as can be seen when he switches to the body of his talk with this statement:

"In our day the dreadful influence of pornography is like unto a plague sweeping across the world..."

then gives a number of other statements:

"The effect of this plague can be, unfortunately often is, spiritually fatal."
"Pornography will always repel the Spirit of Christ and will interrupt the communications between our Heavenly Father and His children and disrupt the tender relationship between husband and wife."
"The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence."

Then came the phrase that ignited everything:

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Father."

Taking apart this statement in context gives it a bit more meaning. Simply living with same-sex attraction does not make you impure. Church doctrine is clear in that respect. So what did he mean by these "inborn tendencies toward the impure"? Aside from pornography, it is tendency and temptation to act on attractions outside of marriage. President Packer was not claiming that we could change homosexual attractions... he was simply stating that each of us has the power to choose to overcome or give in to temptation.

He then goes on to quote Paul to explain why he was so definite in his statement - "God . . . will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

He continues by explaining the Church's continuing position in moral politics:

"Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel."

And finishes his talk with this injunction:

"the simplest and most powerful prevention and cure for pornography, or any unclean act, is to ignore and avoid it. Delete from the mind any unworthy thought that tries to take root,"

President Packer gave a clear, direct, and concise talk on pornography and other sexual sins. I don't know if he realized that everything in his talk could also be applied to same-sex attraction... or how painful that application would be. But I know that his final statements were heartfelt and true:

"I promise that ahead of you is peace and happiness for you and your family."
"And I invoke the blessings of the Lord upon you who are struggling against this terrible plague, to find the healing that is available to us in the priesthood of the Lord."


As I read the talk again this evening, the Lord confirmed to me that I'm on the right path. I'm doing what I should be. I'm moving forward. And that is what matters.

Ultimately, as I go through life, it is my responsibility to listen with both my ears and my heart - to know when the Lord is speaking to me - and to follow Him. Then President Packer's promise will come true in my life. I will find peace and happiness... and the strength that comes through Christ the Lord.

Bench Memos NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.

Walker’s Gender Follies August 13, 2010 2:14 P.M. By Ed Whelan   Among Judge Walker’s astounding assertions are his claims that “the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes” (slip op. at 127 (emphasis added); see also purported finding of fact # 70) and that the “genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes” (slip op. at 96 (emphasis added)).  In their stay motion to the Ninth Circuit, Prop 8 proponents summarize in a long footnote just a small part of the record evidence and other authority that they presented to Walkerin refutation of such claims.  The rest of this post is excerpted from that footnote.  “DIX” references are to defendants’ trial exhibits.  (I’ve deleted some citations.) [T]he district court’s startling conclusion that a child does not benefit from being raised by its own married mother and father, and that indeed it is irrational to believe otherwise, is plainly unwarranted.  The law “historically … has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parentsto act in the best interests of their children.”  Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. [584,] 602 [(1979)]; see also Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 159 (2007) (“Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child.”); cf. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 7 (“as far as possible, [a child has the right] to know and be cared for by his or her parents”). Indeed, “[a]lthough social theorists . . . have proposed alternative child-rearing arrangements, none has proven as enduring as the marital family structure, nor has the accumulated wisdom of several millennia of human experience discovered a superior model.”  Courts have thus repeatedly upheld as rational the “commonsense” notion that “children will do best with a mother and father in the home.” [citations omitted] Cf. Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 614 (1987) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (“the optimal situation for the child is to have both an involved mother and an involved father”). This widely shared and deeply engrained view is backed up by social science.  See, e.g., Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., Marriage From a Child’s Perspective, Child Trends Research Brief at 6 (June 2002) (*DIX26) (“Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.”); id. at 1-2 (“[I]t is not simply the presence of two parents, … but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.”); Wendy D. Manning & Kathleen A. Lamb, Adolescent Well Being in Cohabiting, Married, & Single-Parent Families, 65 J. Marriage & Fam. 876, 890 (2003) (DIX21) (“The advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents.”); see alsoAffidavit of Professor Steven Lowell Nock, Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada, Case No. 684/00 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Justice 2001) (DIX131, attached as Exhibit C) (detailing flaws in same-sex parenting scholarship and studies).  In light of all of this evidence, the district court’s conclusions that “the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes,” and that the biological bond between a child and its mother and father “is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes,” are simply unsupportable.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ruth Institute

Cohabitation: Why Not?

Many women view living together as a stepping-stone toward marriage, with the idea that cohabiting will help them enjoy a better marriage in the future. This could not be further from the truth. A recent survey of the literature on cohabitation concluded, “No positive contribution of cohabitation to marriage has ever been found.” 40* Not only is cohabitation not good preparation for marriage, it is not a good long-run alternative to marriage. Cohabiting relationships are less stable than marriage, and this instability creates a whole series of problems. Demographers have come up with a new term to describe this situation. They call it “multiple partner fertility.”41 We can get an idea of the magnitude of this problem with one statistic: of all unmarried urban mothers with more than one child, almost 70 percent exhibit multiple partner fertility; that is, they have children by more than one man.42 The children of racial minorities are more likely to be born to unmarried mothers. In 2005, 37 percent of all U.S. children were born to unmarried mothers. This includes 70 percent of African American children, 48 percent of Hispanic children, and 25 percent of non-Hispanic whites.43 Rather than regale the reader with statistics, let me tell the story of a hypothetical young woman named Lucy. Not all of the outcomes that happen to Lucy happen to each and every unmarried mother. Lucy’s story is a composite of the outcomes that are systematically more likely to happen to unmarried women, or to cohabiting women, than to married women. (I have omitted the hazards associated with drugs and alcohol, so as not to cloud the marriage issue.) Telling Lucy’s story illustrates what multiple partner fertility looks like in the lives of ordinary people of modest means. Lucy has graduated from high school, has a job as a dental assistant, and lives with her boyfriend, Izzy. Lucy becomes pregnant. It isn’t entirely clear whether this is an “accidental” pregnancy. She has been on the Pill, but she missed one or two. (The failure rate for the Pill for low-income, cohabitating women younger than twenty is 48 percent.)44 Lucy is glad to be pregnant. She has always wanted to be a mother. Izzy isn’t so happy. He isn’t ready to be a father. Pregnancy was not part of the deal. He feels cheated. They quarrel frequently, and he sometimes hits her. (Domestic violence is more common in cohabiting couples than in married couples.)45 As her pregnancy proceeds, Lucy becomes less and less interested in sex, and Izzy becomes less and less interested in her. He has sex with a former girlfriend. (Cohabiting couples are more likely to have “secondary sex partners.”)46 He feels entitled, since he isn’t “getting any” from Lucy, and after all, she cheated him by becoming pregnant in the first place. They quarrel some more, and he moves out for a while. By the time baby Anna is born, Izzy has moved back in with Lucy. Now Lucy isn’t so happy. In fact, she becomes depressed. (The presence of children increases a cohabiting woman’s probability of depression. Children do not affect a married woman’s probability of becoming depressed.)47 Izzy is caught up in the excitement for a while. But the combination of sleep deprivation, a needy infant, and a preoccupied and depressed Lucy are more than Izzy can handle. He moves out for good when Anna is six months old. (Cohabiting relationships are less stable than married relationships.)48 He never offers to contribute support to the care of Anna. (Never-married fathers are much less likely to pay child support than fathers who were once married to the child’s mother.)49 Lucy finds that she can’t handle the demands of her job and the care of her baby by herself. She goes to court to try to get Izzy to pay child support. The court orders him to pay an amount that is nowhere near enough for Anna’s needs. He does not have a very good job, so Lucy seldom collects even the small amount the court has ordered. (Cohabiting men earn half the income of married men.)50 In the meantime, Izzy does not feel like working at a normal job with a normal payroll, since his wages are garnished for Anna’s care. He works under the table at informal jobs, keeping for himself the little income he makes. Lucy moves back in with her mother. Everything goes smoothly until Lucy becomes lonely. She becomes involved with Tom, who has a decent job and thinks Lucy is pretty and the baby is cute. Lucy leaves her mom and moves in with Tom. Lucy becomes pregnant again. Tom becomes less and less tolerant of Anna, who is a toddler by this time, but Tom is very happy when their new baby is a boy. Of course, baby John takes much time and energy from both Anna and Tom. Anna feels neglected, cries a lot, and misbehaves. Lucy is exhausted. Tom helps her with the new baby, but he is not interested in Anna. Both parents begin to show a preference for little John. (Men spend less time with their partners’ children than with their own biological children. The presence of a stepfather decreases the time a mother spends with her children.)51 Anna’s behavior deteriorates. Lucy and Tom quarrel about Anna’s poor behavior. One night, Lucy takes baby John and Anna and slips out. She goes back to her mother. Tom is furious. He wants her back, and he wants his son back. Lucy refuses. She gets a court order for child support; he gets a court order for visitation rights. He is trying to be a good father, as he understands it. His visits with his son are anguished. The little boy doesn’t understand what is happening. He wants to go home with his daddy. (Parental divorce increases a boy’s probability of depression, regardless of the quality of parenting. Nothing seems to compensate for the sense of sadness that boys experience at the loss of their fathers from the home.)52 Meanwhile, Lucy finds a new boyfriend, Joe. She, Anna, and Johnny move in with him. You guessed it: she gets pregnant again. The new boyfriend does not like little John, the reminder of Lucy’s past relationship with Tom. One day while Lucy is at work, Joe slaps John. Lucy asks him how Joe got a bruise on his thigh. Joe says he fell. Lucy wants to believe him. The second time she comes home to find a new bruise on Johnny, Joe admits that he slapped him. (Children are more likely to be abused by their mother’s boyfriend than by anyone else.)53 According to one study, children living in a household with an unrelated adult are fifty times more likely to die of inflicted injuries than children living with two biological parents.54 At the same time, Anna’s behavior is deteriorating. She hasn’t seen her own father since infancy. Neither Tom nor Joe has been very interested in Anna. (Children in cohabiting stepparent households are more likely to feel sad and lonely, and have poorer self-control.)55 By this time Anna is in first grade, and she frequently misbehaves in school. Lucy gets a call from the principal, Mr. Knowles. He tells Lucy that he is concerned about Anna. Mr. Knowles thinks Anna needs a father figure, and would benefit from counseling. (Fatherless girls become sexually active earlier than girls who are with their fathers.)56 They also get their periods earlier.57 Lucy gets angry and says there is nothing wrong with her daughter. Her boyfriend Joe is a perfectly fine father figure. In her heart, though, she knows all is not well with Anna. The girl still wets the bed almost every night. Joe complains about the odor, and makes fun of her. Lucy can’t really stand up to him. She doesn’t want to lose him, and she needs his income. Little Anna is on course for abusing drugs and alcohol, for teen pregnancy, and for a lifetime of multiple partner fertility herself.58 Little Johnny is at a higher risk for violence, delinquency, and drug use.59 If Lucy had married one of those men and stuck with him, her life chances and those of her children would be greatly enhanced. Some of her children might have had the problems associated with stepfamilies, but at least the subsequent children would have the benefit of both parents married to each other. Without marriage, the fathers of Lucy’s children are unlikely to contribute much, if anything, to the care of their children. One might object that some of these problems are associated with teen pregnancy and poverty. That is partly true. But the deeper truth is that channeling sexual behavior and childbearing through marriage creates wealth rather than dissipates it. Men behave differently when they marry, and especially when they become married fathers.60 One might also object that Lucy’s case of switching from partner to partner is extreme and atypical. But once we jettison permanence and exclusivity as serious social norms, we are on weak ground in trying to say that Lucy shouldn’t have ditched her boyfriends quite so casually. If a husband is an unnecessary accessory to childbearing, why isn’t it okay to have multiple children, each with different fathers? If one divorce without cause is acceptable, why aren’t multiple divorces? In other words, once we’ve discarded Catholic principles, alternative principles are not so obvious. One might object that women of higher income and education will not face as many and as serious problems as Lucy. Perhaps a more highly educated, wealthier woman could cohabit, raise children, and do just fine. In some cases, this may prove to be correct. After all, wealthier people have more resources to face all kinds of life challenges than those of lower income. Indeed, every problem of the poor is exacerbated by the failure of marriage.

Prop. 8 ruling ignores precedent, evidence and common sense

WASHINGTON POST

By Edwin Meese III

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Even some who support same-sex marriage worry that, in striking down California's voter-approved proposition defining marriage as between one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker went too far. They are right -- and not the only ones who should be concerned. Walker's ruling is indefensible as a matter of law wholly apart from its result.

By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision. This opinion is arbitrary and capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor are too extreme to stand.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the result, structurally sound opinions always confront binding legal precedent. Walker's is a clear exception because the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on whether a state's refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was unanimously thrown out on the merits, for lack of a substantial federal question. The Supreme Court's action establishes a binding precedent in favor of Proposition 8. But Judge Walker's ruling doesn't mention Baker, much less attempt to distinguish it or accept its findings.

During a trial, litigants from both sides introduce various types of evidence, including witness testimony, documentary evidence and legal opinions that involve "judicial notice" of certain well-known or legally controlling facts. Sound judicial opinions consider the facts and evidence on both sides of an argument, apply them fairly to the dispute at hand and determine which legal cases are on point.

Yet Walker's opinion pretends that the voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist. It neither acknowledges nor attempts to distinguish the writings of renowned scholars presented at trial in support of Proposition 8, including that of anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, history professor Robina Quale and social scientist Kingsley Davis. It ignores the writings of legal giant William Blackstone and philosophers John Locke and Bertrand Russell. It even refused to address the fact that Congress, in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Despite ample evidence introduced into the record that only a union of a man and woman can produce offspring (as if that needs proof), Walker's opinion denied the relevance of that biological fact. That difference has been the main reason civilization recognized the uniqueness of marriage as between a man and woman, and why courts have repeatedly relied on that common-sense truth.

Despite voluminous evidence and common sense pointing to the contrary, the judge also declared that opposite sexes were never part of the "historical core of the institution of marriage"; "evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different than opposite-sex couples"; traditional marriage is an "artifact"; and, also without reference to the monumental evidence to the contrary, that it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes."

These assertions appear in the opinion's "findings of fact" section, yet they are not facts. These "findings" derive from arbitrary and capricious non-analysis and are forcefully contradicted by evidence in the court record. No appellate court should allow the ruling to stand.

Having ignored everything courts typically rely on in making sound judgments, Walker concluded that Proposition 8 was enacted "without reason" and demonstrates "a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples [and are] . . . not as good as opposite-sex couples." Nothing in Proposition 8 supports such conclusions, particularly since California law grants same-sex couples all the benefits and protections that apply in traditional marriage.

People can differ on whether, as a matter of policy, states should allow same-sex marriage. The robust debate on that topic should not be short-circuited by judicial fiat.

Yet, according to the federal district court, Americans such as President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the majority of members of Congress and the 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 are all bigots who have "no rational reason" to oppose gay marriage.

Even the usually liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has reservations about immediately implementing Walker's exercise in judicial social engineering. A three-judge panel of the court issued a stay late Monday to prevent California's law from being cast aside before a panel can fully review the matter. It was right to do so. The rule of law demands more careful consideration of this important issue than Walker's decision delivered.

The writer is chairman of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. He served as U.S. attorney general from February 1985 to August 1988.