Judge Upholds Stay on Same Sex Marriage in California

Comments Off on Judge Upholds Stay on Same Sex Marriage in California

Well no same sex marriages in California for a while now…that’s good news. The will of the California people is holding for right now and it should be standing until they vote to change their mind….if they do. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to stick their nose in this. This should be a State to State decision voted on by “the people.”

Appeals Court Stays Prop 8 Marriage Ruling and Ban

The Ninth Circuit has stayed Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling in the high-profile Constitutional challenge to California’s same-sex marriage ban.

The case is scheduled to be heard in early December. So hold the wedding bells.

There is some good news, though, for the same-sex plaintiffs: The court warned in its order that it’s considering dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the appelants — who don’t include the Governor or Attorney General — lack standing.

“In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing,” says the order.



New campaign demanding ‘gay’ Prop. 8 Judge Vaughn Walker be booted

Comments Off on New campaign demanding ‘gay’ Prop. 8 Judge Vaughn Walker be booted

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.

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.

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.

Worldnet Daily

Homosexual Judge overturns California’s ban on same-sex marriage

1 Comment

Well for the THIRD time an activist Federal Judge has struck down ‘the will of the people’ that was voted in by them. As you read this article, you might also find it interesting and informative to read another article on this blog entitled ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial Against Arizona” , because the same thing applies to this California case as it did to the Arizona case.

Newt Gingrich: Gay Marriage Ruling ‘Outrageous’

“Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy.

“Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

Prop. 8 ruling will ‘stir a fire’

A pastor and pro-family activist believes the federal judge’s decision to usurp the will of the people of California marks a sad day for the state and for the rest of the country.

On Wednesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in favor of four homosexuals who claimed that voter-approved Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, violated their civil rights. (See earlier story)

Jim Garlow, lead pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, California, says the judge threw out the principle of “we the people.”

Jim Garlow“He simply ripped from the state of California and seven-million voters the chance to articulate the definition of marriage that’s been accepted for over 5,000 years,” Garlow laments.

He notes that because the ruling will affect so many other states that already outlaw same-sex “marriage,” he expects the American people will be angry.

Some other Reactions to the Unconstitutional ruling by the Federal Judge

In March 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which specified in state law that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in California. But in May 2008, the state Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated against gays, and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples got married in the ensuing months.

Opponents of same-sex marriage quickly got Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot to amend the state constitution, and it was approved by a margin of 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.

The approval of the measure led to statewide protests and lawsuits challenging the legality of Proposition 8.

In May 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8, but also ruled that the unions of roughly 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed in 2008 would remain valid.

Here’s some reactions from San Diego 6’s article:

“Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents and the children of California,” Thomasson said.

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn’t in the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states’ rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction.”

Thomasson added that as “a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect.”

Dr. Jim Garlow from Skyline Wesleyan Church added, “if you did this on the basis of equal protection and a person says I want to tbe married to 3 people or 5 people or I want to be married to my dog, what right does he have not to provide ‘equal protection’?”

Garlow said this could have an effect at the ballot box. “There will be a backlash, a conservative movement, that I think will play an even greater role in November.”

Federal Judge Rules Gay Marriage Ban is Unconstitutional

SAN DIEGO – Marriage equality supporters in San Diego praised a federal judge’s decision Wednesday to strike down Proposition 8, the state’s voter- approved ban on same-sex marriage.

“I am overjoyed that the U.S. District Court overturned Proposition 8,” San Diego City Councilman Todd Gloria said. “I know our fight to secure this right is not over, but I am confident this civil right will be confirmed and marriage equality will be realized.”

The ruling is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.

San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker presided over the non-jury trial of a lawsuit alleging the voter-approved 2008 measure violates the equal protection rights of gay and lesbian couples by preventing them from marrying.

In a 136-page ruling, Walker wrote that the proposition “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Walker wrote. “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 issued an order barring the enforcement of the law, but proponents of Proposition 8 were expected to appeal — likely all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Walker issued a stay on the ruling until at least Friday,meaning same-sex marriages will not immediately resume in the state. Supporters of Prop 8 had asked for a stay, saying allowing couples to marry pending the appeal would create confusion if Walker’s ruling is eventually overturned.

San Diego 6

‘Gay’ judge decides future of homosexual ‘marriage’

Comments Off on ‘Gay’ judge decides future of homosexual ‘marriage’

Boy, now this makes a lot of sense doesn’t it? After the voters of California have put this ‘gay marriage’ thing on the ballot I think it’s 2x now and each time voted for marriage to be between a man and a woman………it still ends up in court. Now tell me is this the Constitution by the people or a judge? I thought it was supposed to be by the people…..So why is this going to court again? And with a ‘gay’ judge, now you know it will be a fair trial won’t it.

‘Gay’ judge decides future of homosexual ‘marriage’

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker is presiding over Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Sources say Walker is homosexual.

SACRAMENTO – A San Francisco district court judge who is reportedly homosexual will decide soon whether to overturn the will of California voters and strike down Proposition 8 – the state’s constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman – in a landmark trial that many say is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys for both sides presented closing arguments today in the trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a lawsuit seeking to declare the proposition violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Voters first approved the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman as a state law in 2000, then again in 2008 as an amendment to the state constitution with 52 percent of the vote. Later, the state Supreme Court, reversing its own ruling from only months earlier, affirmed 6-1 that the provision is constitutional.

While Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrat Attorney General Jerry Brown are listed as defendants in the lawsuit, both have opposed Proposition 8 and refused to defend it in court – forcing the private attorneys to defend the law.

Now, Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, along with lead counsel Charles Cooper and ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno, have intervened on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com, the group that sponsored the amendment campaign. They are defending Proposition 8 again in a trial that ADF warns could impact marriage laws in as many as 45 other states – including the 30 states where voters adopted state constitutional amendments.

ADF senior legal counsel Austin Nimocks spoke to WND as he left the courtroom today.

“I think the closing arguments went very well, especially the arguments of Charles Cooper,” Nimocks said. “All the legal bases were covered, and I think he did an excellent job articulating why the voices of more than 7 million Californians, in enacting Prop 8, were constitutional voices with the full entitlement to do exactly what they did.”

Nimocks added that regardless of how the judge rules, the case is likely to be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Then the losing side will likely appeal that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, though the court is under no obligation to review the case.

“In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled on same-sex marriage, ruling that there was no fundamental right to same-sex marriage,” he said. “It’s quite possible that the high court doesn’t need to revisit this issue that’s already decided.”

Perry had her homosexual union invalidated by the state Supreme Court. Several other homosexual activists have taken their complaints to federal court as well.

In a statement today, Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a group that’s not party to the Proposition 8 case but defends traditional marriage, declared, “The lawsuit against Prop. 8 … is more than an attack against natural marriage. It’s an attack against our republic and our democracy. Our republic, because a judge took this case and made a circus out of it, despite the word ‘marriage’ not being in the U.S. Constitution and the 10th Amendment protecting states’ rights to define marriage. Our democracy, because the voters of California have twice passed ballot measures defining marriage, even defining marriage in the California Constitution.”

Thomasson added, “If the federal courts strike down Prop. 8, they will have declared war on the voters in the 30 states that have defined marriage in their state constitutions.”

Worldnet Daily

Jerry Brown asks California Supreme Court to void gay-marriage ban

1 Comment

Well here we go again….we just can’t have the people of a state voting for what they want, democracy” that means majority rules, that is unless it’s not polictically correct I guess. Then it’s ok for the minority to invoke it’s wishes on the masses whether they like it or not. What’s next polygamy legalized or marrying you pet? Everytime this topic rears it’s ugly head I think of John Adams words which are so true even today  approximately 200 years later,

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

. Jerry Brown (as a proxy) has to have someone else’s (a minority) wishes cramed down the majority’s throat.  The Supreme Court cannot rule against the people’s vote and wishes. At least they’re not supposed to, but in this day of lawlessness while touting the “rule of law” who knows what might happen. 

Jerry Brown asks California Supreme Court to void gay-marriage ban

The state attorney general, who had earlier vowed to defend Prop. 8, offers a novel legal theory for why it should be overturned. The action surprises some legal experts.
By Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan
December 20, 2008

Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles — California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate the voter-approved ban on gay marriage, declaring that “the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”

Brown’s argument on Proposition 8, contained in an 111-page brief filed at the last possible moment before the court’s deadline, surprised many legal experts. The attorney general has a legal duty to uphold the state’s laws as long as there are reasonable grounds to do so. Last month, Brown said he planned to “defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.”

But in his filing, Brown, who personally supports same-sex marriage, offered a novel legal theory to back his argument that the measure should be invalidated.

The California Constitution protects certain rights as “inalienable,” Brown wrote. Those include a right to liberty and to privacy, which the courts have said includes a person’s right to marry.

The issue before the court “presents a conflict between the constitutional power of the voters to amend the Constitution, on the one hand, and the Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, on the other,” Brown wrote.

The issue “is whether rights secured under the state Constitution’s safeguard of liberty as an ‘inalienable’ right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.”

Voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, but to use the ballot box to take away an “inalienable” right would establish a “tyranny of the majority,” which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, he wrote.

In an interview, Brown said he had developed his theory after weeks of consultation with the top lawyers in his office. “This analysis was not evident on the morning after the election,” he said.

Opponents of gay marriage, who also filed arguments with the court Friday, offered a sharply differing view of the case.

The brief, filed by the Protect Marriage coalition, told the justices that they should uphold the proposition, which voters approved 52% to 48% on Nov. 4 after one of the most expensive and emotional campaigns in state history.

The law “commands judges — as servants of the people — to bow to the will of those whom they serve — even if the substantive result of what the people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened,” they argued.

In an interview, Andy Pugno, the lawyer for Protect Marriage, called Brown’s argument “an astonishing theory.” He added that he was “disappointed to see the attorney general fail to defend the will of the voters as the law instructs him to.”

The Supreme Court justices have indicated they will hear arguments in the case as early as March, with a ruling expected later in the spring. Kenneth W. Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor and U.S. solicitor general, plans to argue on behalf of Protect Marriage, the group said Friday.

Some opponents of gay marriage have said that if the court strikes down Proposition 8, they expect to see an effort to recall justices who vote against the measure.

The issue could also have an impact on Brown’s political future. The attorney general, a former governor, has been exploring a run to return to that job in 2010. (I might add which explains his reversal on his defending prop.8)

Read the entire article here: