SAN FRANCISCO - MAY 26:  Supporters of Proposition 8 hold  signs outside of the California Supreme Court May 26, 2009 in San Francisco, California. The California State Supreme Court voted 6-1 to uphold proposition 8 which makes it illegal for same-sex couples to marry in the state of California. More than 18,000 same-sex couples that wed before prop 8 was voted in will still be legally married. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

A federal judge in California who is reported to be living a homosexual lifestyle today nixed the state’s “gay”-marriage ban, ruling that voters cannot define in their own state constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

The ruling, based on the U.S. constitutional provisions for due process and equal protection, came from Judge Vaughn Walker.

His decision overturned the approval by state voters of Proposition 8 during the 2008 election, which added to the state constitution the definition of marriage as being – only – between a man and a woman.

The decision came in a lawsuit brought by homosexual duos after the state Supreme Court created homosexual “marriage” in the state, then voters threw it out just months later.

‘Nullification’ – Just say no! Rediscover historic doctrine of resistance to fight 21st–century federal tyranny

“As the ringleader of an embarrassing courtroom circus, Judge Walker’s opinion on Prop. 8 will be based either on his homosexual-agenda lifestyle or on how he would like to be otherwise remembered, but his ruling won’t be founded on the written words or original intent of the United States Constitution,” said Randy Thomasson, president of the Save California organization.

The organization described Walker as a homosexual.

“If the judge respected the U.S. Constitution, he wouldn’t have accepted this case or called an unprecedented ‘trial’ or asked a raft of courtroom questions that were based on subjective feelings, and not based on the actual Constitution,” Thomasson continued.

“The opponents of man-woman marriage claim Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Yet there’s nothing about marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, marriage laws are up to individual states. Also supporting Californians’ positive vote for Prop. 8 is Article IV of the Constitution, which requires states to have a government run by the people, specifically, ‘a republican form of government.’ And despite enemies of man-woman marriage trying to morph the Constitution’s references to ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection’ into a declaration of homosexual ‘marriages,’ these words in the post-Civil-War 14th Amendment are about giving former black slaves the same legal rights as white freemen – it’s not at all about marriage or even about couples,” he explained.

The court’s opinion, which traditional-marriage supporters have asked be stayed pending appeal, said the homosexuals “have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due-process and equal-protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement …”

Walker opined, “because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

“Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union,” according to Tony Perkins, chief of the Family Research Council, which supported Prop. 8.

“The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a ‘marriage’ is,” he said. “Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally recognized understanding of marriage not only since America’s founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.”

Tim Wildmon, chief of American Family Association, said Walker’s ruling is “tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional.”

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior – in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior – and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge,” he said.

“It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters. This case never should even have entered his courtroom. The federal Constitution nowhere establishes marriage policy, which means under the 10th Amendment that issue is reserved for the states,” he continued.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity,” he said.

“This is a classic case of judicial activism,” said Mary McAlister, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel. “The Constitution is unrecognizable in this opinion. This is simply the whim of one judge.”

Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund said the decision would be appealed.

“Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” said Senior Counsel Brian Raum. “It’s not radical for more than seven million Cailfornians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be more radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”

Advocates for homosexual behavior were rejoicing, with supporters of Marriage Equality announcing “community gatherings” to celebrate.

“The community gatherings will provide an essential outlet for our joy at this important decision with national implications and provide an opportunity to discuss next steps for continuing this forward momentum,” said Molly McKay, media director for the pro-homosexual organization.

When voters in California in 2008 adopted the definition of marriage as being between only one man and one woman, homosexual activists had a different tone.

WND reported at that time an angry mob of homosexual activists attacked an elderly bespectacled woman carrying a cross, then shouted her down during a live TV interview.

“We should fight! We should fight!” screamed one protester as the woman, identified as Phyllis Burgess, stood calmly with a reporter waiting to be interviewed.

Attorney James Bopp, who has been battling homosexual activists over records of those who signed petitions in support of traditional marriage in Washington state, said he’s documented death threats, vandalism, people losing their jobs and other “quite nasty attacks” on those who advocate for traditional marriage.

He noted that in California, traditional-marriage supporters even were targeted on websites that posted maps directing people to their homes.

“Some of the same people that did that in California were the ones who wanted the petition signatures and addresses in Washington,” Bopp said. “They were quite open they were going to post these on the Internet.”

He said the “technique” of intimidation has been effective, causing supporters of traditional marriage to abandon their support.

Bopp said a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that did not keep petition signatures concealed did recognize that the First Amendment right to sign petitions could be undermined in certain circumstances by harassment and intimidation.

He now is working to demonstrate, again, to a lower court again that there is a possibility of that kind of retaliation if the names in Washington state are publicized.

“We believe that we have ample evidence that would justify protecting from disclosure the supporters,” he said.

The district judge hearing the Washington case had ruled in favor of the First Amendment privacy of petition signers, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned it, despite evidence from California’s fight that saw a sport utility vehicle painted with hate messages in front of a Mormon family’s home.

In that dispute, the worst attacks were online. A blog commentator known as “World O Jeff” wrote, “Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.”

Another contributor to the website said, “I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, [but] I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one.”

Added another at the time of the California fight, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, at the time called the statements “hate crimes” for their intent to create violence against someone based on their beliefs.

“This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they’re not happy with a political outcome. This is criminal activity,” he said. “The homosexual lobby is always calling for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and ‘hate.’ Here we have homosexuals inciting, and directly threatening, violence against Christians.”

Two other comments from another homosexual website: “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT” and “I’m going to give them something to be f—ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”

And another: “Remember, I’m angry. And I’m strong from my years at the gym and really am ready to take my frustration out on someone or something.”

Yet another listed the addresses of Mormon facilities: “I do not openly advocate firebombing or vandalism. What you do with the information is your own choice.”

WND also has reported homosexual activists in Maine targeted churches with IRS complaints.

“Today’s [California] ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California’s direct democracy by imposing their point of view,” said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

“Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. Capitol Research Institute was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get Proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California’s constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions: the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage,” she said.

“Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents and the children of California,” Thomasson added.

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states’ rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction. It is high time for the oath of office to be updated to require judicial nominees to swear to judge only according to the written words of the Constitution and the original, documented intent of its framers. As a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect,” he said.


L to R: Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Ron M. George participated in the majority opinion declaring a one-man-one-woman limit to marriage unconstitutional. Ming W. Chin, Marvin R. Baxter and Carol A. Corrigan of the California Supreme Court filed dissents

The state Supreme Court had issued a ruling that created homosexual “marriage” in the state but a petition drive added Proposition 8 to the 2008 ballot, where voters had their say.

In the court’s majority ruling at the time, Judge Ronald George concluded “an individual’s sexual orientation – like a person’s race or gender – does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

The amendment simply read: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

But in Justice Marvin Baxter’s dissent to the majority opinion in California, he called the majority logic “legal jujitsu” that “oversteps judiciary power.” Another dissent, from Carol Corrigan, said the conclusion simply was “judicial overreaching.”

Baxter’s dissent raised even further warnings of chaos in the institution of marriage unless judicial and executive activism is reined in.

“The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,” he wrote. “Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”


If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today’s WND Poll.


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.