WITHOUT HONORABLE JUDGES, WE WILL NOT HAVE HONORABLE LAWS

When two people of the same sex try to marry each other,  they engage in either insane or dishonest behavior. To call such a relationship marriage, they must insist something is true when it is self evident that it is not true.

Consider the options.

  • If you believe in evolution, then logic demands that you believe that the survival of the species is best promoted by a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Will some of us have genetic mutations that produce a proclivity to other patterns of behavior? Yes, but such behavior will be contrary to the survival of the species. In fact, such behavior is such a great departure from our natural inclination that it is self-destructive. Therefore, since a great part of our behavior is learned, we have a strong incentive to teach and promote heterosexual relationships.
  • If you are a Christian who believes that God created mankind, then you believe what the Bible says. Marriage is a sacred institution ordained by God. Yet when we make the choice to deny God, God gives us up to do the filthy things of our heart’s desire, and we do shameful things with each other (Romans 1:24). Therefore, since a great part of our behavior is learned, we have a strong incentive to teach and promote heterosexual relationships.
  • If you are uncertain of the origin of man and uncertain of what you believe, then you may say it does not matter. Yet you still have to make a choice, and that choice still matters. Do you care about children? The institution of marriage has always been the primary means that the societies of man have chosen for the care and protection of children. And nothing else has worked better. That is why the traditional legal definition of marriage revolves around the protection of children. Yet homosexual rights advocates would have us believe that what defines marriage is the desires of the marriage partners, not the needs of children. Instead of making the protection of the rights of children the highest priority, homosexual rights advocates would have us believe the feelings of the marriage partners are more important. That is plainly selfish.

The Law is not about the protection of feelings. The Law is about the protection of rights. And if we want the Law to protect our rights, then we must appoint judges who understand the difference between what is real and their feelings. Thus, I ask you to consider what Delegate Bob Marshall has to say about a certain nominee.

Dear Friends,

On Monday, May 14, the General Assembly will vote to appoint several judges. One District Court applicant, Tracy Thorne-Begland, has been an aggressive activist for the pro-homosexual agenda, lives with his “partner” and two adopted children.

After more than a week of pleading by some Republican Caucus members, the House Republican Leadership has so far declined to remove Mr. Thorne-Begland’s name from the block of nominees. If this situation remains unchanged, I will offer an amendment to remove his name.

Please contact your Republican delegate by early Monday, to support my amendment.  Remember, one judge threw out Proposition 8, negating the voices of 7 million Californians who voted to protect marriage.

Mr. Thorne joined the military under clear rules which he challenged when he sued the Department of Defense to change DADT.  Will he challenge rules which apply to Virginia courts?

Here are a few of the results of a Google search of his name, including his activism with the national homosexual advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign, and Equality Virginia:

May 10. 1993:  NBC Nightly News story regarding President Clinton’s pro-homosexual policy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PMEXfSqm5k;

Mr. Thorne sued the Department of Defense (Thorne vs. Department of Defense) claiming DADT restricted Free Speech. The case was filed in U.S. District Court, Alexandria. His claim was rejected by the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case;

May 26, 2010: Mr. Thorne wrote a Letter to the Editor to the Richmond Times Dispatch entitled “Lies and Deceit Must End” in opposition to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military;

September 21, 2011: WAVY TV interviewed Tracy Thorne-Begland about the end of DADT;

RVA News wrote an essay, “An Open and Honest Life,” by Nathan Cushing, the biography of Tracy Thorne-Begland including photo with his partner, and Barack Obama;

November 15, 2011: Gayinfluence.blogspot.com/2011/11/tracy-thorne-begland.html Gay and Bisexual Men of Influence;

The above is a partial list of public, partisan activism which is protected by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, is this public activism consistent with the judicial demeanor and temperament we expect of Judges who serve the public?

The text of Virginia’s Marriage Amendment reads: “That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.” [Virginia Constitution, section 15A, ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007 (emphasis added).]

The Virginia Constitution specifies that all officers elected or appointed must take the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as ……………….., according to the best of my ability (so help me God).

Can this candidate swear the required oath, if he has already indicated by his past public actions that he does not support this section of Virginia’s Constitution barring same sex legal relationships?  While our judges and judicial candidates in the Commonwealth certainly have a right to free speech, they do not have the right to disregard the Virginia Constitution.

If you agree, please ask your state Delegate and Senator to support my amendment which I will offer if necessary to remove his name from the block of Judges to be approved.

Thank you!

- Bob Marshall
Virginia State Delegate
13th District

Marshall sent out his note on Saturday, but it is hard to keep up with this stuff. Saturday I was on the road. Yesterday was Mother’s Day, and family take precedence over politics.

Last I checked (at 10 PM here), the General Assembly was still in session, and no decision had been made.

About these ads

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in 2012 Election, Culture War, Delegate Bob Marshall. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to WITHOUT HONORABLE JUDGES, WE WILL NOT HAVE HONORABLE LAWS

  1. The Mad Jewess says:

    God is not going to put up with a nation that sanctifies their perversion through holy matrimony.

    Like

Comments are closed.