The homosexual federal judge in California who said that gender “no longer forms an essential part of marriage” when he ruled that voters in the state were constitutionally prohibited from defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is quitting.
The announcement regarding U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker comes from Rich Wieking, clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The announcement, released late yesterday, said Walker will step down as chief judge Dec. 31 and leave the court entirely in February 2011.
The change could create huge new possibilities should the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Prop 8 case now is pending, return any or all of the case to the lower court for further action, which is not unusual for the much-overturned appellate district.
Matthew McReynolds, counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute, one of the many pro-family organizations that have worked on the Prop 8 case, said it’s about time.
“The retirement of Judge Walker is significant because of the possibility the Prop 8 case will be sent back to the district court at some point,” he said. “Judge Walker’s exit from the federal bench can’t come soon enough for the people of California, who are still reeling from his pronouncement that the majority of voters are irrational.”
Walker, whose homosexual lifestyle has been documented locally, wrote in his opinion that overturned the votes of millions of California residents to amend the state constitution to include the traditional definition of marriage, that:
- “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.”
According to the announcement, Walker told President Obama, who also has worked to promote the campaign seeking same-sex “marriage” in the U.S., “Concluding twenty-one years of judicial service, I leave the bench with the highest respect and regard for the federal judiciary, its judges and their staff and the essential role they fulfill in our constitutional system”
Proposition 8 was passed by voters in 2008. In his Aug. 4 decision, Walker declared it violates the rights of homosexuals under the federal Constitution. His decision now is on appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the decision is affirmed, the case likely would be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit also could overturn the decision, or parts of the decision. And it could remand the case for further work at the district court level.
Walker’s decision had disregarded the terse warning contained in California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter’s dissenting opinion in a 2008 case on same-sex “marriage.” That case saw same-sex “marriage” imposed by judicial fiat on the state, a result that was reversed by the Prop 8 vote.
Baxter had warned of the “legal jujitsu” required to establish same-sex “marriage” by court order.
“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.
Liberty Counsel has 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.
The American Family Association had not waited for the judge to determine his own future, launching an action alert to its several million supporters calling for the impeachment of Walker.
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.
Walker’s replacement as chief judge, according to the court clerk, is expected to be U.S. District Judge James Ware, but whether he’ll be any more responsive to moral issues than Walker remains undetermined.
According to a 1997 report in the San Francisco Chronicle, Ware withdrew his name as a nominee to the San Francisco appeals court when he was caught in a lie.
“He issued a written statement admitting the falsehood,” the report said.
The story, which Ware reportedly had told many times, including to the newspaper, was that his brother was murdered in Alabama when he was growing up. A Virgil Ware, who had a brother named James Ware, was murdered at age 13, but he was not the judge’s brother.
The report explained how the judge told of being “molded” into a “person hungry for justice” by the death of his brother. The newspaper said Ware “told about how he and his brother sneaked out of church one Sunday in 1963 to play football. They hopped on a bicycle and James pedaled while 13-year-old Virgil perched on the handlebars. Suddenly, two white teenage boys on a motor scooter pulled alongside and shouted racial epithets, Ware said. They then pulled out a rifle and shot Virgil.”
The newspaper said the shooting happened hours after a Baptist Church in Birmingham was bombed by the Ku Klux Klan.