The judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who in a few days will hear arguments over Proposition 8, the decision by California voters to define in their state constitution the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, have been picked, and their records of activism are alarming those who support traditional marriage.
“It doesn’t look good for the Prop 8 federal court appeal in San Francisco on Dec. 6,” wrote Randy Thomasson, chief of the SaveCalifornia.com Campaign for Children and Families on his own blog.
“The ‘randomly chosen’ three-judge panel of the infamously liberal 9th Circuit was announced Monday … Let me tell you about Stephen Reinhardt, the ultimate judicial activist: In 2009, he wrote an opinion calling the federal Defense of Marriage Act ‘unconstitutional’ – despite the U.S. Constitution being silent on marriage and homosexuality. In 2007, Reinhardt ruled that partial-birth abortions are a constitutional guarantee. And in 2005, in a sex survey dispute, he ruled parents of elementary-age children in public schools give up any moral objections to their child’s education,” Thomasson wrote.
“In the last two decades, Reinhardt has repeatedly ruled against the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. Also, in 1996, he authored an opinion claiming that physician-assisted suicide was somehow ‘constitutional,'” Thomasson wrote.
The second judge, Thomasson said, has described himself as a “liberal on social questions.”
“The third judge on the Dec. 6 panel is a likely constitutionalist. Idaho-based Judge Norman Randy Smith is one of the court’s newest members and a Republican appointee of former President George W. Bush,” Thomasson said.
“The only practical hope I have is that Reinhardt is the most overturned judge in the United States. The fact that he’s on this panel could paint a big bull’s-eye on him for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, while being pro-homosexuality, is also mostly pro-law-and-order,” he said.
The arguments for same-sex “marriage” have been white-hot in several campaigns recently in the U.S., including that 2008 vote in California where voters approved Proposition 8, a constitutional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
The results overturned a state Supreme Court decision there that had created same-sex “marriage” only months before, and were, in turn, overturned by a federal judge, a homosexual who concluded that such “rights” were embedded in the U.S. Constitution.
It was in September when U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, an open homosexual, overruled more than seven million voters to banish Proposition 8, setting up an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
His 136-page ruling said, “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
Walker also wrote:
- “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.”
Walker’s decision also 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.
“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 argument, in fact, is being made now in a court case in Canada.
In one such state, Iowa, voters responded last month by voting to fire three of the seven state Supreme Court justices who imposed homosexual “marriage.” The remaining justices were not up for a vote at this time.
Now those who campaigned for voters to reject Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit say they are hoping that the message will reverberate across the country and other judges will begin reining in their activism.
“The people have spoken. Time for the elitist judges to understand there is a constitution and that government is owned by the people,” wrote Dennis S. in a forum at the Topix.com website.
Pastor Cary Gordon of Cornerstorne World Outreach in Sioux City was one of the pastors who coordinated a letter to churches asking them to speak out against homosexual “marriage.”
He told WND that the letter reminded pastors of their moral obligation to cry out against evil and address arrogance and injustice in the courts.