The arguments soon will be lining up in a federal appeals court over the voter-approved Proposition 8 in California – which restricted marriage to one man and one woman – and now one government in the state has weighed in to support the voters' will.
Imperial County is "the first, and will probably be the only,
governmental entity to file an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals" in the case, according to Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is representing the county.
State officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, steadfastly have refused to defend their own constitution.
"Ultimately, the county is the sole governmental entity willing to defend a constitutional amendment that was overwhelmingly supported by the voters in the county of Imperial," said Jennifer Monk, an associate general counsel for the organization.
"Voters deserve to have the highest court of the land decide the fate of their votes and the constitutionality of Proposition 8," she said.
Just last week, homosexual judge Vaughn Walker ruled the voter-approved definition of marriage unconstitutional.
Advocates for Faith and Freedom had filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit on behalf of the county, where close to 70 percent of the voters cast their ballots in favor of Proposition 8. But the request was denied. Now the county is renewing its request to the appeals court.
"The personal opinion of a single judge in San Francisco should not be substituted for the opinion of over seven million voters," said Robert Tyler, the organization's general counsel. "The county's intervention will help to assure the integrity of the judicial and democratic system."
Walker, whose ruling argued gender no longer matters to marriage, has issued a temporary stay of his ruling. The county is prepared to seek an emergency stay from the appeals court if Walker decides to change his, Advocates said.
Walker's ruling ignored a warning from a state Supreme Court justice that establishing same-sex "marriages" creates a slippery slope leading to approval of polygamy and incest.
Walker, who openly has lived a homosexual lifestyle, issued a ruling that 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."
The terse warning had come from 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.
A team of private attorneys who defended Prop. 8 already has confirmed plans to appeal to the 9th Circuit. But Walker's opinion 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.
The organization's action alert offers to constituents an option to track down their representatives in Washington and contact them directly on the issue.
"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.
ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent of Proposition 8, called the Walker conclusion stunning in that it said "it is irrational for the citizenry to decide to retain the traditional definition of marriage."
The organization's lawyer, Charles 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."