- Text smaller
- Text bigger
The federal judge in California who said gender has no place in marriage and told the state to violate its own constitutional restriction of marriage to one man and one woman is being called “a tyrannical judicial activist devoted to satisfying himself.”
The statement came today from Randy Thomasson of the family-advocate SaveCalifornia.com after Judge Vaughn Walker ruled same-sex marriages can resume in California Aug. 18.
He earlier issued an opinion that it was unconstitutional to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and became the target of an impeachment campaign.
Walker had 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. That state court decision was overturned by voters a few months later.
Thomasson said the warning has been sounded.
“Californians and Americans are waking up to the awful realization that the written Constitution may have no authority, oaths of office might be meaningless, and our republic is severely threatened by tyrannical judges and politicians. Bolstered by the broken oaths and homosexual ‘marriage’ demands of Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Vaughn Walker has proven himself to be a tyrannical judicial activist devoted to satisfying himself, rather than being a faithful, duty-bound supporter and defender of the written Constitution.”
He continued, “Walker knows that his ruling will be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and could be overturned, yet he seems to care little about a peaceful process. By demanding that homosexual ‘marriages’ begin Aug. 18, Walker is demanding his own way, despite normal legal processes, despite his oath of office, and despite the written words and contextual origins of the U.S. Constitution. If these were the days of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, federal marshals would arrest and imprison Vaughn Walker as a traitor and domestic enemy of the United States Constitution.”
According to Staff Counsel Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the key organizations arguing on behalf of traditional marriage advocates ProtectMarriage.com, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being asked immediately for a stay of Walker’s order.
“This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld. It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard. If the trial court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending,” he said.
Charles Cooper, the lead counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, said, “The decision whether to redefine marriage is for the people themselves to make, not a single district court judge, especially without appellate scrutiny.”
Andrew Pugno, ProtectMarriage.com’s general counsel, said Walker’s announcement reveals “the court is determined to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on California, whether we like it or not.”
The ADF noted some of Walker’s far-reaching conclusions that opined marriage could not be limited to one man and one woman:
- “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
- “Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”
- “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.”
- “The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.”
- “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
- “Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.”
Liberty Counsel called the ruling “outrageous.”
“This is a classic example of radical individualism and judicial activism. Judge Walker obviously has not learned the lesson of 2008, when the California Supreme Court refused to stay its decision on marriage. That decision was reversed in short order, but it caused a huge disruption,” said chief Mathew Staver.
Officials with Advocates for Faith and Freedom said the dispute is “far from resolved.”
The alert asks supporters to contact their members of Congress and demand his removal.
“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.