Wednesday, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, federal Judge Vaughn Walker declared California’s Marriage Amendment (“Proposition 8″) unconstitutional, ruling that the state must allow same-sex marriage (see opinion, here). But, apparently, Judge Walker saw “marriage” in the U.S Constitution, even though it is nowhere to be found there, which most people understand to mean that it is an issue for each state to decide (i.e., the 10th Amendment). However, there is a stay on the ruling through today, so that opponents of the decision can appeal it to a higher court and ask for a stay until that appeal is ruled upon.
This deplorable decision has the potential to gut the definition of marriage as well as the integrity of the democratic process — a single, unelected federal judge, undoing the votes of more than seven million Californians who voted for this state constitutional amendment in 2008. That November, when California voters chose Barack Obama for president (who has stated he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, see interview with Jake Tapper of ABC News), they also passed Proposition 8 (52 to 48 percent) declaring marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Sadly, when special interest groups fail to win either in the legislature or on the ballot, they turn to the courts to overturn the will of the people. This is precisely what happened in California. In fact, according to Dan McLaughlin at RedState.com (please read for a detailed analysis of Judge Walker’s flawed “reasoning“), even in a bad year for conservatives:
49 percent of white voters, 58 percent of black voters, 59 percent of Latino voters, 49 percent of women, 54 percent of men, 53 percent of independents and 67 percent of voters over age 65 voted in favor Proposition 8.
Can’t get more diverse than that. Ironic, huh?
An accurately defined democratic process should not allow for a handful of activists to overturn what a majority has conclusively and legally decided. Fortunately, yesterday’s opinion is far from final. Pro-family advocates have immediate plans to appeal the ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. There is a good chance that the case eventually will reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
In his opinion, Judge Walker singularly waived off as irrelevant any “moral and religious views [that] form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.” Some have called into question Judge Walker’s impartiality, as he is openly homosexual. Adding to the skepticism, Judge Walker will rule on today’s request to place a stay on his own ruling.
In Virginia, the homosexual lobby has lost time and time again, both on the ballot and in the General Assembly. While this activist judge is redefining the centuries-old meaning of marriage, the people of Virginia have stated very plainly that they don’t want anything like that to happen here.
Counterfeit forms of marriage cheapen and undermine real marriage. The union of a man and a woman in a committed marriage is the foundation of a stable society. Social science is clear that men, women and children benefit far more in a stable, traditional family. That makes traditional marriage and family far too important to society to experiment with to advance a political agenda. Especially when it’s done by one man against the will of seven million people.
You’re right; marriage is nowhere in the Constitution. But equality and civil rights are. You’ll find no reference to “Christian” or “Christianity” either but you’d probably like to change/amend the Constitution to add it. The only argument the anti-gay marriage side has is a religious-based argument. On the civil rights/gay marriage issue, the Constitution and your religious-based argument are not in harmony. Sorry.
You say the judge’s decision undermines the will of the people. While it’s appropriate for “the people” have the right to vote on many issues, it’s not appropriate for “the people” to vote on whether one segment of society can be denied the same freedoms that they themselves enjoy.
You’re incredibly uniformed and your assertions are nothing but lies.
[...] NOKIA 1203 FULL WARRANTY JUST 10 DAY USE ADVANCE TELECOM BRAND NEW …Alcfc.com Blog Archive Cheap Cash Advance Payday Loan Lenders …Advance Cash Loan Online Payday | Online BankingFamilyFoundationBlog.com Blog Archive Judge Walker Ignores … [...]
I forgot to mention how ironic it is that the California judge that overturned Prop 8 was nominated by none other than conservative hero Ronald Reagan and confirmed under George H.W. Bush. An “activist judge?” What a bitter pill it must be for you to swallow.
For some reason, Republican presidents aren’t good at vetting judges. Of course, 20 years ago, who ever heard of homosexual marriage? Bush 41 gave us the liberal SC Justice Souter, who actually believed it was legal for a city to take your property and give it to a corporation. But it’s ironic you are gloating. According to you libs, Republicans have “litmus” tests for judges. The fact is, only extreme left wingers can get nominated and confirmed by Dem presidents and senates. How about Roger Gregory? Clinton nominated him for the 4th circuit and the GOP senate let it die; when GWB and George Allen came in, GA got W to resubmit him, “for unity.” He’s one of the most pro partial birth abortion judges on the 4th circuit. A Dem would never nominate a conservative “for unity.” Yes, you libs certainly play hard ball better than the sap GOP. That’s why so many conservatives don’t “party” with the GOP anymore.
[...] a peek inside U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that declared unconstitutional California’s P…) by former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese (now at The Heritage Foundation). Unfortunately, as [...]