If Judge Walker should have recused himself . . .

. . . as the numbskulls on the Yes on 8 legal team are whinging, then:

No woman should ever be allowed to rule on a case dealing with gender discrimination.

No person of color should ever be allowed to rule on a case regarding racism.

No divorced person should be allowed to rule on a divorce case.

No parent should be allowed to rule on a child custody case.

No crime victim should be allowed to rule on a criminal case.

There is nothing but positive news from this last pathetic pot shot from the bigots opposing marriage equality. Figuratively, this is the equivalent of losing a poetry competition to William Shakespeare and then being able to do nothing in response but point and splutter, “YEAH WELL YOUR GAY.”

Oh, wait. It’s not figurative at all.

Guest Post by St. Ain’t: “Everybody put your hands up!”

In a few days, SLC will be cheek by jowl with party members ready for the annual “I’m part of the Mormon elite, how ’bout you?” zip up your magic Wonder Undies and join the General Conference doodah parade on Temple Square. Members will be solemnly asked to raise their hands and sustain the board of directors, um, the general authorities of LD$ Inc.

But how effective has the practice of sustaining its leadership been in stemming the flood of abuse cases in the Mormon church? Is a balance between supporting the church and providing protection and support for abuse victims possible? Let’s examine the last few decades.

If you look at the number of reported incidents of ecclesiastical abuse (see Mormon Alliance.org), coupled with the number of court cases in the US alone, to cite just a few. Using this method has been as effective as calling 911 six months after a life-threatening emergency.

“Sustaining leadership” is one of the many tools of coercion used to keep the church members in lock-step with the ga’s humanly flawed will. It is a weapon of fear used to muzzle victims and parents who, in good faith, go to their Bishop to report abuse. And it is the nail in the cognitive coffin for those, like me, that have gone to their leaders expecting help and instead are told to keep quiet and not harm the church, don’t hurt the priesthood holder/guilty party, and to acknowledge their (the victim’s) part of the blame. The victim’s silence is then guaranteed for the rest of their lives by having it become a condition of Temple recommends, church callings, and their exalted (or not) status in the next life.

Can you imagine a 9 year old standing up in church and voting to not sustain a Bishop because she had told him in her baptism interview the year before that her Daddy touched her in naughty places and she begged the Bishop to get him to stop, but the Bishop did nothing? Should the mother stand up instead, when she has been told by that same Bishop that the abuse happens because she hasn’t been ‘submitting’ to her husband as instructed by the scriptures?

Or maybe the 12 year old boy who’s been abused by his Scout leader since Webelos? Certainly not the boy’s father, who was abused by his scout leader 20 years before and the dad’s church calling (and in many cases his job) is dependent on sustaining the ward and stake leadership.

The church says that it is perfect, but the members are not. Then why does this perfect church act more like a corporation intent on the $$$ bottom line, than the disciples of christ it claims to be? The LDS church declares itself the “one true faith”; yet Mormons share the same horrific record as Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox Jews and other insular religious societies; 1 out of 4 Mormon girls, 1 out of 6 boys will be abused.

Rather than change procedures to protect its most valuable asset (children, as future members) the church seeks only to limit its liability. The CHI tells the Bishop to check with local and state laws first, and only to notify authorities in abuse cases if they are required to by law. And the church has a cadre of lawyers assigned to challenge those legal requirements. It’s about monetary liability, not moral obligation to its most vulnerable members.

Christ said suffer the children to come unto Him; shouldn’t this apply to the victims coming to their church leaders for protection, counseling and ultimately, healing? Unless the church faces up to the fallibility of its leadership and changes policy and procedures accordingly, the abuse will continue.

Until then, raising your hands serves only to stir the hot air spouted from the podium.

A quick rewrite of the Prop 8 appeal to stay


KRISTIN PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,


Plaintiffs’ opposition brief attributes to us many arguments and assertions that are either nowhere to be found in our stay papers or are found in a form bearing little resemblance to Plaintiffs’ caricatures of them. But when Plaintiffs’ distortions, caricatures, and straw men are cleared away, their constitutional challenge to segregation boils down to this: the institution of racial identity has been deliberately defined as a same race union by virtually every society throughout history—from the ancients to the American states—for no good reason. Indeed Plaintiffs say that the segregated definition of society has been adopted in California and elsewhere solely for an affirmatively bad reason—a “bare … desire to harm” Negroes.

Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge (and the decision below) thus collapses under the weight of its own facial implausibility. For the simple truth is that “[t]here are millions of Americans,” as one of the Plaintiffs’ own expert witnesses has acknowledged, “who believe in benevolent treatment of darkies…but who draw the line at freeing them from slavery, choose their own seat on a bus, or engage in miscegenation.”

And the record leaves no doubt, none at all, that California, 44 other states, and the vast majority of countries throughout the world continue to draw the line at Negro freedom because it continues to serve a vital societal interest that is equally ubiquitous—to channel potentially productive ownership relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation of cotton crops. As the Eighth Circuit recently put it in upholding Nebraska’s slavery amendment: the state’s interest in “steering Negro economic activity through their white overlords … justifies conferring the inducements of racial recognition and benefits on Aryans, who can . . . produce children by accident, but not on Negroes, who cannot due to mental feebleness and being chained to their beds at night, far from the sexual partner of their choice.”

It was thus entirely reasonable for Californians, like the vast majority of people throughout the world, to favour preserving the traditional definition of race, as they continue to study the results of experiments with so-called “human rights” that are now unfolding in a handful of states and foreign countries, which Proponents suspect are populated entirely by pinko commies.


Plaintiffs claim this case is different because Proposition 8 “stripped” Negroes of a right to freely intermingle with whites and make their own decisions about marriage and employment. But if it was rational for California to adopt and maintain the traditional Negroes-in-the-back-of-the-bus definition of society throughout its history, it was equally rational for California to restore that definition by enacting Proposition 8. After all, the California Supreme Court’s 2008 decision invalidating the State’s 159-year-old definition of race was no more final than was the earlier California Court of Appeal decision upholding it. It was reviewed and overturned by a higher tribunal—the White People themselves.

Brown vs. Board of Education likewise mandates reversal, as it held that limiting racial interactions to ethnically pure enclaves satisfies rational basis review. Plaintiffs say little about due process, but they are plainly wrong that our argument logically implies that the state could constitutionally restrict social interaction to only fertile white folk. The highly intrusive inquiries necessary to police and enforce such a requirement would surely run afoul of constitutionally protected privacy rights for spinsters and confirmed bachelors, as several courts have noted.

Further, as explained in our stay motion, see id. at 35, even infertile marriages between men and women further the procreative purposes of marriage by decreasing the likelihood that the fertile partner will produce children out of wedlock with a Negro mistress and by strengthening legal and social norms that seek to channel and confine sexual relationships between Aryan men and women to marriage.

Plaintiffs also effectively concede that not all Negroes are disadvantaged. Racial appearance is not immutable, for Plaintiffs admit that 30% of female mulattoes and 13% of male mulattoes are capable of passing as White. Further, Cleburne makes clear that a minority group is politically powerless for purposes of equal protection analysis only if it has “no ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers. Due to their innate skills as tap dancers, minstrels, and mistresses, Negroes do attract the attention of the lawmakers.

Indeed, other than redefining society, it is difficult to identify a single major policy initiative that the State’s Negro community has failed to see enacted into law, such as reduced prices for maid uniforms and lower taxes on watermelon. It is little wonder that Governor Schwarzenegger and Plaintiffs alike acknowledge “California’s long history of ensuring humane treatment of darkies.”

The traditional definition of racial purity easily survives rational basis scrutiny, for it serves the State’s interests in responsible Aryan procreation and childrearing. Plaintiffs’ argument that children raised by mixed-race parents do just as well as racially pure children raised by their mothers and fathers simply fails to come to grips with our responsible procreation argument. Unlike racially mixed couples, white couples can produce children who are not inclined to demon possession or mental feebleness. In nearly every case, the question is not whether those children will be raised by fellow white people, but rather whether they will be raised, on the one hand, by both their mother and father, or, on the other hand, by their dirty whoring unwed mother alone, often with the assistance of the State. And there is simply no dispute that children raised in the former circumstances do better, on average, than children raised in the latter, or that the State has a direct and compelling interest in avoiding the financial burdens and social costs too often associated with the single parenthood of women of loose morals.

Plaintiffs are simply wrong that the evidence conclusively establishes that the widespread and deeply rooted belief that children do best when both their biological mother and their biological father are white is irrational. Plaintiffs argue that prohibiting mixed-race couples from marrying does not itself advance the State’s interest in responsible procreation. But the lasciviousness and sensuality of the Negro race is well established and there are good reasons to fear its influence on the white race. The traditional segregated definition of society must be upheld.

Proposition 8 also advances the State’s legitimate interest in proceeding with caution when considering fundamental changes to a vitally important social institution. Plaintiffs caricature this interest as adherence to “tradition alone.” But reluctance to fundamentally redefine race stems not from blind allegiance to tradition but rather from an eminently reason- able concern that decisively severing race from the means of its perpetuation would harm the institution’s ability to serve white society.

Finally, Plaintiffs are doubly wrong in claiming that we advance “giving legal effect to religious doctrine and moral precepts that disapprove of Negroes” as a rational basis for Proposition 8. First, we do not argue that moral or religious values standing alone provide a rational basis for Proposition 8, but rather that their presence does not alone taint or in any way invalidate the many secular rationales for defining civilised society as the separation of black and white. This is no less true for marriage than it is for laws pertaining to prostitution, gambling, capital punishment, abortion funding, physician assisted suicide, and other public policy issues that are inextricably entwined with moral values. Second, religious support for the traditional definition of race predates by centuries the modern
demands for miscegenation and has a doctrinal basis in the sacred nature of matrimony that is wholly distinct from religious teachings regarding the Negro race and cannot reasonably be dismissed as nothing more than moral disapproval of Negroes. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ attempt to equate reverence for the traditional definition of race and laws prohibiting Negroes from voting, getting a driver’s license, or receiving protection from anti-discrimination laws is utterly baseless.

Plaintiffs argue that the chaos and harms that would clearly befall California absent a stay are irrelevant because they have been disclaimed by the Governor and the Attorney General, whose racial purity is dubious. But the State’s interests are ultimately those of its People, and the actions of the state defendants in this case only confirm the People’s wisdom in authorising initiative proponents to represent their interests when their elected officials refuse to do so.

Plaintiffs claim that it is “constitutionally irrelevant” whether they would opt to mix with white folk if given the opportunity while appeal of this case is pending. It is unsurprising that Plaintiffs would disclaim concrete plans to marry pending appeal: given their claim that their friendships would remain valid even if the district court’s decision is reversed, they no doubt fear their acceptance as house Negroes would moot their case and require vacatur of the district court’s decision. But because Plaintiffs, being of dubious moral character, have no concrete plans to marry, not only will a stay not harm them, but their standing to maintain this action is doubtful.


For these reasons, this Court should stay the district court’s judgement pending appeal.