The openly homosexual federal judge in California who overturned the state’s constitutional limitation of marriage to one man and one woman ignored a warning from the state’s own Supreme Court about the coming chaos of polygamy and incest if same-sex “marriages” are established and now is the target of an impeachment campaign.
Judge Vaughn Walker, who openly has lived a homosexual lifestyle, yesterday issued an order that the state could not enforce its own constitutional requirement that marriage is between members of the opposite sex only.
The ruling from Walker said “race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage.”
“Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other,” Walker said. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”
His opinion ignored the terse warning in state Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter’s dissenting opinion in the 2008 case affirming same-sex marriage. Baxter warned of the “legal jujitsu” required to establish same-sex marriage just a few months before California voters passed Proposition 8 and amended the constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
“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,” Baxter warned in his dissent. “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?” Baxter wrote.
The decision by Walker, which is being appealed, was too much for the tradition-oriented American Family Association, which promptly launched an action alert to its several million supporters.
The alert asks supporters to contact their members of Congress and demand impeachment of Walker.
“What you have here is a federal judge using the power of his position to legitimize what is sexually aberrant behavior,” Bryan Fischer, an analyst for the organization, told WND. “He’s trampling on the will of 7 million voters in California. It’s just a gross breach of his judicial responsibility.
“We think of it as an expression of judicial tyranny, judicial activism on steroids,” he said.
“We have congressmen, they actually campaign on the premise these judges are unaccountable,” Fischer said.
But that’s simply wrong, he contended.
“There is a provision under which they can be held to account. The Framers did not intend for any branch of government to be unaccountable. There are mechanisms for federal judges who are out of control to be called to account,” he said.
Fischer noted the federal documentation provides that judges serve during “good behavior.”
“Of course, that leaves the question open for discussion what is good behavior, but our contention is this is egregiously bad on the part of this judge,” he said.
The AFA argues that since “marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states.”
But, “Under Judge Walker, it’s no longer ‘We the People,’ it’s ‘I the Judge,'” the action alert states.
“In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.”
“Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It’s time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker,” the alert said.
Fischer said the goal is that the campaign will put members of Congress on the spot, and on the record, about their willingness to rein in a renegade federal judge.
A long list of other organizations are in agreement. According to Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, “while it is not surprising that gay activists were able to find a judge in San Francisco sympathetic to their cause, it should alarm that any federal judge would overturn centuries of precedent and millions of votes for traditional marriage based on his own personal view.”
The Family Policy Institute of Washington said Walker’s opinion means “those of us archaic enough to believe marriage should be defined as a relationship involving a man and a woman (which happens to be the majority of the country and the majority of every state in which the issue has ever been voted on) are motivated solely, exclusively and entirely by our hatred of people who don’t look, think and act just like us.”
The group also suggested, “There is a ballot in your mailbox. Fill it out. Judges are being elected.”
The Western Center for Law & Policy’s James Griffiths warned, “It appears that Judge Walker is bound and determined to impose his views on this issue by judicial fiat, even at the expense of democracy and the clearly expressed will of the people.”
ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent of Proposition 8, the voter-approved plan defining traditional marriage, has confirmed plans for an appeal.
Its lead counsel, Charles Cooper, cited the stunning conclusion by the judge that “it is irrational for the citizenry to decide to retain the traditional definition of marriage.”
Cooper continued, “In addition to dismissing the traditional definition of marriage, the judge incredibly found that children don’t need fathers. Or mothers. To state this proposition is to refute it. And the court also found that there is no benefit whatsoever for a child to be raised by its own biological parents. Fortunately, the Constitution does not require the people to substitute the social-science musings of gay-rights activists for common sense. This decision will not stand.”
Officials with Advocates for Faith and Freedom said the decision “is contrary to both well-established precedent and democratic principles.”
The decision came in a lawsuit brought by homosexual duos after the state Supreme Court created homosexual “marriage” in the state and voters threw it out just months later.
“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.
“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 said.
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.”
“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 is radical.
“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.”
Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, called Walker a symbol of an “out-of-control” judiciary.
Pro-homosexual organizations, meanwhile, announced celebrations. But 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.
At that time, 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.