This is what happens when you defy and rile “we the people”.
New campaign demanding ‘gay’ Prop. 8 judge be booted
‘It’s just a gross breach of his judicial responsibilities … activism on steroids’
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.