Message from Ron Prentice- May 14, 2010

UPDATE: Proposition 8 Trial

In my message to you last week, several examples were given of governments punishing religious expression.  In California, testimony in the trial against Proposition 8 brought into question whether religious perspectives should have any place in public life!

Closing oral arguments in the federal district trial over Prop 8 have been scheduled for June 16 in the San Francisco courtroom, and I suspect that much will be made of the “religious” vote.  In fact, religious “bias” has often been blamed as the motivation behind the passage of Prop 8, and for many on the losing side of the vote on marriage, “bias” means bigotry.  

Early on, a trial over the legal merits of Prop 8 – a people’s initiative – seemed straightforward.  After all, a similar complaint had been filed in the California court system, and after the submission of summary briefs and oral arguments, the state supreme court upheld Prop 8 by a 6-1 vote.

But well before the start of this trial in the federal court system, it became apparent that Perry v Schwarzenegger might plow new ground in the legal system’s debate on marriage.

For example, the call for a full trial was out of the ordinary.  Considering whether a matter is constitutional doesn’t usually involve witnesses!  But a dozen or more witnesses addressed issues such as the alleged powerlessness of the homosexual lobby, the alleged inequality in protections and rights between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and the alleged normalcy of homosexual relationships.

Within that testimony, religious beliefs were often suggested as the primary motivation for the support of traditional marriage.  A God-centered worldview that guides a person’s decisions, including their voting, really frustrates those who oppose traditional moral values.  In fact, every year tens of millions of dollars are spent attempting to influence legal courts to reinterpret the First Amendment, to dismantle religious liberty.

Fortunately, Prop 8’s attorneys had done their homework, and in as many hours of cross-examination as plaintiffs’ attorneys took in direct examination, the pro-homosexual testimony was shown to be misrepresented, unreliable, or downright untrue.

Stay tuned and keep praying, that Chief Judge Vaughan Walker will render his decision in accordance with the facts of the case and the precedents of case law.  That decision can come any time after the closing arguments on June 16.

And prepare yourself, your family, and those with whom you have influence, because “religious liberties” are being tested more and more in our courts.

Have a great weekend!

Ron Prentice

P.S.  Proposition 8 received both “yes” and “no” votes based on religious perspectives.  However, the winning message of the “Yes on 8” campaign was based on two overwhelming truths: traditional marriage’s benefits to society, and what is best for children.  Any form of counterfeit would have been opposed, for the same reasons.