Time for a little fisking in red.
August 5, 2010
Well if you are going to add me to your alert list when I sign up to your site to complain, feel free to call me a friend.
Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.
As far as I'm aware equal marriage rights does nothing to infringe on the rights of one-man to take one-woman (or indeed a series of women) to he his lawfully married wife (wives). The proponents of gay marriage are saying that each man should be cleaved to another man and each woman to another woman in matrimony. They are protecting current existing marriage but expanding it's availability to everyone irrespective of sexual orientation.
In doing so, he frustrated the expressed will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.
The vote was 7,001,408 for Prop 9 52.24% and 6,401,482 against. Indeed the Proposition was called 'California Marriage Protection Act' as if the act of heterosexual marriage was under some kind of threat. If there was such scaremongering in the naming it is surprising it didn't pass more comfortably.As Alex Foster pointed out earlier this is the only occasion that equal marriage has been overturned anywhere in the world after it has been introduced. Also should majority rights be put to a majority vote. If they did every time would America still allow slavery, at least in certain states? Would apartheid still be practised in the southern states? Minority rights need to be protected that is what the judge stood up for.
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. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.
Actually that same constitution separates Church and State. The State is to rule as a secular body and take the whims or fancies of the Catholic and Mormon churches who heavily supported Prop 8 and the legal defence in this case to task.
Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."
In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.
Hang on! Wouldn't an openly heterosexual and religious Judge also have had to excuse themselves on that reckoning. Should we then only appoint judges who aren't prepared to make tough decisions, it would make things so much easier.
Some facts about Judge Walker he was a Reagan nominee. Talk about conservative. The current Democrat speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, opposed his appointment because of his alleged 'insensitivity' to gays and the poor.
What can be done?
Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.
These checks and balances are also what the judges have the right to uphold the constitution when a state proposition goes against the ethos of the founders.
Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.
When we are talking about good behaviour lets look at one of the two Prop 8 witnesses who must have perjured himself under oath by saying that a child is 12 times more likely to be abused by a gay, when the government findings, as I wrote yesterday, indicate that the overwhelming majority over 100 times more likely to be a heterosexual person. And most common someone known to the child.
Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.
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.
Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association
So there you have it, that is what the AFA want to do next, instead of actually paying to put up a good defence of their cause in court, they relied on myths and falsehoods and a poor performance. Sore losers, scaremongers and perjurers. Jumping straight to impeach rather than the Supreme Court shows desperation and a need to attack the LGBT, which only has two openly gay judges in the entire USA.