I have received multiple emails and comments on Mr. Thurston's diatribe against prop 8. This is just a quick look into his excellent lawyering and absolute disregard for logic, reason, and morality. I have pasted the majority of this from an email I composed which has been passed on to many of our readers. Mr. Thurston's intended audience is LDS (Mormon) so I have spun my analysis to the same audience. For those of you who are not LDS, read on, you will understand most of this anyway.
"
First of all, Mr. Thurston is an excellent intellectual property attorney. That means that he is really good at copyrights, trademarks, and to some extent patents. In fact, Mr. Thurston is one of the best copyright attorneys in the nation. Mr. Thurston, however, does not practice constitutional law, and from his superficial one-sided "analysis" (if one can even call it that) it is very clear to even the simpleton with a JD and a love for constitutional jurisprudence that the paper isn't worthy of a passing grade in a first year law school legal research class.
Lemme 'splain...
Mr. Thurston begins his written apostasy with a wonderful disclaimer that this letter he has found, which I had never heard of nor seen before Thurston's rebuttal came about, has been passed around by "overzealous volunteers" and is based on "misinterpretations of law and fact." I respectfully disagree (thats legalese for "liar liar pants on fire")
Law is always being interpreted, and where no law is written, there is no misinterpretation. Mr. Thurston, by providing his credentials is trying to coax the reader into believing that he is on the reader's side and that his paper contains the truth and is presented as a tool to help the church and the prop 8 effort. This is the ONLY place in the entire paper where Mr. Thurston's skills as an attorney shine. The substance of the paper is worthless statute citing and fact "checking" mixed into his biased interpretations of current existing law not taking into account the fact that since May, a family and marriage in California no longer means husband and wife.
OK, on to the actual meat and potatoes
1. Education
Mr. Thurston's opinion is that no school teacher will teach that gay marriage is ok, when they already have to teach about sexuality and families. The problem with the facts, as outlined by Mr. Thurston, is that if gay marriage is normal, then it can't be excluded from being taught and that this code section does in fact mandate that gay marriage is included in the teachings. Additionally, this is only one of many laws in California that speaks to what MUST be taught to school children. This is not an opt out thing, it is mandated. By accepting gay marriage, it must be taught as normal and right to school children.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), when discussing why we can't teach religion in school, said, "children are like sponges". That is why we can't teach them anything that would sway their beliefs towards any religion, nor against any religion. Teaching that gay marriage is ok goes directly against the logic of the SCOTUS in their holdings on what can and can't be taught in public school. Mr. Thurston is half-right in saying that prop 8 won't change the law here, but he is masking the full truth, which is still lying. The full truth is that if Prop 8 passes, then no one can say gay marriage is normal and no one will be mandated by the state teach about gay marriage. If Prop 8 doesn't pass, then schools MUST teach that gay marriage is ok.
In addition to this one weak little bill, the state assembly is very pro-gay agenda and anti-religion or morals. Every year we get three or four bills to expand homosexuality education in the state. The big kicker is that if gay marriage is ok, then there are no more arguments against those bills and they will eventually pass.
2.Tax Exempt
Oh boy. Mr Thurston totally changes the subject here. In fact, he brings in an entirely moot argument, on purpose, so that he can distract the reader from the real argument about discrimination. The big problem is that if the government gives tax breaks to a religious organization who openly discriminates against a protected class, then that class has standing to sue both the government and the religious organization. The In Re Marriage case in California is only the first winner in a line of cases to make sexual orientation a protected class. That means that your choice of preferred genitalia is protected just like your skin color or national origin. However, your right to free exercise of religion is on the chopping block.
The major problem in this arena is that if you have wide acceptance of homosexual marriage, and a church preaches against it, then that church is going to be sued and the government will probably in the "separation of church and state" fear-mode not do anything to step up and protect the church but will probably take the plaintiff's side. MY interpretation is based on recent US and California supreme court cases and the trend of those respective courts to limit religion and increase "privacy" rights.
3. Gay Adoption mandates
Do I need to even explain the internal contradictions of Mr. Thurston's argument here? Yes, the adoption agency voluntarily stopped placing children because they were going to spend millions of dollars fighting lawsuits. That is what I call a good business decision. Yes, we all know that LDSFS currently does not take any government money, which allows them to discriminate against unprotected classes. NO ONE, other than religions for religious purposes, can discriminate against any protected class in California. Passing Prop 8 will close the door to the fight for standing (see above genitalia reference) by homosexuals.
This isn't an issue of rights. The family code (section 297) in California gives domestic partnerships all the same rights married couples have. The issue here is that a homosexual couple or individual will actually have more rights that a normal person. I use the word "normal" because there is no other term that should be used to describe people who are not homosexuals. If you don't know that what you are doing is sin, then how can you ever repent of it? We have been counseled to reach out to our homosexual brothers and sisters, embrace the sinner, not the sin. The fight against prop 8 is in direct conflict with so many basic principles of the gospel. The adversary knows that we are always looking for the words, "eat, drink, and be marry" that he will never put that phrase forward. Instead, he uses that tactic with other issues, like homosexuality. If homosexuality is embraced, then how will anyone be able to repent?
4.Gay housing
Whoa. BLATANT LIES. Do you remember the story about wolves in sheep's' clothing? This guy is one of those. If prop 8 does not pass, then married housing will have to take gay couples and even religious schools will have to comply. Notice that Mr. Thurston does not give any backing to his arguments other than a link to mormonsformarriage reciting the article. This is because he has none. Even a Luddite knows that change is right around the corner. Furthermore, homosexuality as a violation of honor code will be attacked and suits will be filed at BYU. It is only time before enough states follow California. In fact, if California fails, then 19 states will have their marriage definition statutes overturned as well and a case will be brought before SCOTUS to give homosexuals the protected status they have been longing for. One of the biggest factors The Court looks at when deciding difficult social issues is what the states have already decided. If the majority of the states are for gay marriage, than the SCOTUS will uphold it as well.
5.Ministers in Jeopardy
I think that it is funny that Mr. Thurston doesn't even say what constitutes hate speech in the US and what is and isn't protected. Instead, he focuses in on Canadian law (which is moot) and a California case that didn't come anywhere close to deciding anything to do with homosexual rights (again totally moot). The real issue is that a whole new class of people may sue civilly for defamation and religions will be ostracized and eventually become as the Jews were to the Nazis. If you want a full analysis of Christianity as the new Jew, I can send it to you another time. Suffice it to say that everyone is always looking for a scape goat, and it just happens to be that Christians in America fit the mold that Jews in Germany fit in the 1930s. It is also the same justification the Lamanites used to slaughter the Nephites.
I have NEVER seen this particular argument, and I actually believe it might be a total fabrication so that Thurston could skirt the issue.
6.Money, Fear, Activist Judges
Quoting what Attorney General "almost disbarred" Brown wrote as the fiscal impact does not help. The fiscal impact is that there will be more lawsuits, complaints, and general fights. Nothing has ever stopped domestic partners from having elaborate ceremonies celebrating their love. Just because it will be called marriage does not mean that they will all the sudden spend money. Mr. Thurston deliberately hides the facts in the only case that has anything to do with California, the insemination case. In the case, which was in Oceanside, the Doctor explained his beliefs and referred the couple to his colleague (followed the law), who successfully performed the procedure. The couple then sued anyway. The big problem is that there are lots of legal non-profit groups that are pro-gay. As a non-profit, you get funding from outside sources, and then also get to keep your attorney fees when you win the case. In other words, it costs you nothing to go after someone in the name of gay-rights, but the defendant gets put out of business protecting his or her good name. It is a total racket and no one is more effective at using it than the gay-rights people.
As far as engendering fear is concerned, all I can really say is that this whole paper stinks of an attempt to lull us away in to carnal security. Engendering fear of what? Fear of my loss of rights to teach my children? Fear of my tax dollars going to promote homosexual lifestyles? Fear of being sued because I believe the Word of God? Fear of practicing my religion and sharing the Gospel? You bet I'm fearful. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't understand the scriptures or has forgotten to read them. The arm of flesh can be corrupted, and I believe that Mr. Thurston is corrupted.
Activist Judges
Chief Justice Ronald George is a RENOWNED activist justice. Just about every decision that comes from his mouth is new law, not interpretation of law. The In Re Marriage case is the biggest heap of crap I have ever read, and I have read the IRS income tax code. J. George bases his opinion on a legislative bill that says that gays are protected under privacy laws and that because of that protection, if a person asks a gay person in a domestic partnership if he/she is married, that person's privacy is breached because he would have to then say no or lie, and the question alone is unjust. That is it. 120+ pages condensed into one sentence. J. George failed to acknowledge that the legislative bills that get passed do not take precedence over initiatives passed by the people, as prop 22 was. Therefore, not only was his argument circular, it was flawed in its fundamental concept of conflicts of law. Had J. George not been an activist judge, he would have actually read the law and found it constitutional based upon current existing law. Instead, he is a KNOWN pro-gay and anti-religion judge (he wrote the decision striking down the parental consent to abortions for girls under 14 law, even though you need parental consent to get your ears pierced) and viewed this case as a way for him to push his own ideals and not do his job of judging. The dissents are scathing, he should be ashamed."
Posts
