Prop. 8 Judge: Federal Judge, or Agenda-Driven Journalist?

The federal judge over the Proposition 8 case, Judge Walker, is acting less like a federal judge, and more like an agenda driven journalist. Walker, who wanted this trial to be posted on YouTube, had his true colors revealed in an LA Times article posted online last night.

The coverage of the case began with lawyers presenting arguments to Judge Walker. To those in support of gay marriage, Walker asked philosophical questions:

Olson (a lawyer in favor of gay marriage) called marriage “one of the most vital personal rights” and a “basic civil right.” Withholding it from gays and lesbians “doesn’t make sense,” he said.

(Rather than asking for a definition of civil rights) U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked if the state should simply get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses. (Walker was not seeking any kind of meaningful argument)

“That may solve the problem,” Olson said, but it “would never happen.”

Walker also asked Olson if voters are entitled to pass laws stemming from “moral disapproval,” such as prohibitions on alcohol. (100% philosophical, Olson could reply however he wants without losing credibility)

Olson replied that U.S. history is filled with moral condemnation of people based on their race, gender and ethnicity. Proposition 8, passed by 52.3% of California voters in 2008, perpetuates discrimination “for no good reason,” Olson said.

Absolutely no cross-questioning.

Now look at Judge Walker’s questions for the defense (and all but one paragraph of the defense mentioned in the two-page LA Times article):

Charles J. Cooper, who is representing the Proposition 8 campaign and has argued many cases before the Supreme Court, told Walker that a limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples has “prevailed in virtually every society since early history.” (And this is guaranteed to be the worst argument presented by the defense)

Walker noted that many states once barred interracial marriage (obviously demanding a good argument). Cooper replied that those laws were based on a notion of “white supremacy,” and not on a long-standing tradition.

Cooper said the evidence would show that opposite-sex marriage is good for children, and that the “procreative purpose of marriage” would be “diluted or weakened” if same-sex couples were permitted to marry. (Not a bad argument, but there’s better. See more here)

(Walker then) Asked what evidence exists to show that same-sex marriage would “radically alter the institution of marriage,” (again, acting as the plaintiff, Walker demanded a sensible argument) Cooper replied that data from the Netherlands will show that it leads to a decline in marriage rates. He said it also would lead to more children being raised outside of marriage and higher divorce rates.

As Edwin Meese said in his New York Times Op-Ed, the court has “(Stacked) the deck against Prop. 8.”

Judge Walker’s motives for putting the trial on YouTube may or may not be tainted. No matter the motives, Walker has fashioned the trial in a way that will make the defense look silly.

But maybe putting the trial on YouTube wouldn’t be so bad. I admit:

1.Our modern media works in sound bites, and I’m sure many people won’t not see the extreme bias that fills that San Francisco courtroom.

2. YouTube videos would give Judge Walker a chance to propagate his opinions.

3. Persecution of those defending traditional marriage would likely increase.

But, to allow the trial to be shown on YouTube could also have some advantages:

1. The country will see all the fallacy filled arguments of plaintiff lawyers (not to say the defense hasn’t used any, they have).

2. People will recognize the extreme bias that is framing the trial.

3. The trial is a public display of misused power. Judge Walker is clearly acting against the U.S. judicial oath, which reads:

“I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

There are many definitions of the word respect, feel free to look at them. After reviewing them, it was clear to me that the definition meant in that oath was “favor or partiality.”

Judge Walker’s oath was, “I will administer justice without (favor or partiality) to persons.” His obvious bias is a mockery to the American justice system and the vow that he himself made.

Putting the trial on YouTube wouldn’t be so bad. It would just start a race between propagators and truth-tellers.

And truth always wins.

Prop 8 Upheld!

One month ago, United Families International gave you a short update on the marriage battle as it was playing out across the United States. Today, as policy discussions come to an end before the break of summer, we have additional information to share regarding the targeted New England area of the United States, as well as Washington DC and California’s Prop 8.

Gay rights activists who aimed to legalize same-sex marriage throughout New England by 2012 are certainly building momentum. It appears that they will have passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage in at least 4 of the 6 New England states by the end of May. The win is a blatant attempt to “normalize” gay marriage one area of the United States at a time, but also to redefine marriage through the state legislative process instead of through the court system.

Before this year, the gay rights activists only saw success in the court room. Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, and Iowa were legalized through their state courts, allowing proponents of marriage to point out that the will of the people was overturned by liberal courts involved with policy making. Unfortunately, last month Vermont became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through legislative action.

Voters believe that when it comes to who should decide whether same-sex marriage should be legal, 43 percent of voters say their state legislature, and 25 percent say the courts should. Only 16 percent say neither should make the decision.

FRC Releases Powerful Video – ’100 Days of Change for the Family’

From LifeSiteNews.com: Washington D.C. – On April 29, the Family Research Council (FRC) released a powerful video report on the devastating first 100 Days of the Obama presidency. The report dramatically exposes the negative impact of the Obama Administration on life, marriage, the justice system and other family issues.

“This video provides indisputable evidence of the current Administration’s hostility to the values of faith and family,” said FRC President Tony Perkins. “This President and his advisors have a very purposeful agenda, one that is seeking to take our country in a radically different direction. Mr. Obama is personally winsome, but his agenda is destructive.”

The video reveals Obama’s 1. Change for the unborn, 2. Change in the stem cell debate, 3. Change in our justice system, 4. Change for marriage, 5. Change in government spending, 6. The planned radical reduction or elimination of charitable deductions and 7. Change in the economy.

The report uses the President’s own spoken words to emphasize how the change he is bringing about is radically different from what he has led the American people to believe he would do.

The video concludes with a repeated clip of Obama’s words, “Change has come to America”, which FRC says is a radical social agenda which preys on the most vulnerable members of our society.”

UPDATE: Iowa and Vermont

VERMONT (AP):

MONTPELIER, Vt. — The Vermont House has given final approval to a bill that would legalize gay marriage in the state.  The 94-52 vote for final passage on Friday falls short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto promised by Gov. Jim Douglas.  

The state Senate is expected to concur with the House action on Monday. The governor’s office says he will then veto the bill quickly.  Legislative leaders say they could bring the bill up for veto-override votes in the House and Senate as early as Tuesday.

IOWA:

WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES RESPONDS TO IOWA COURT LEGISLATING GAY MARRIAGE: CARLSON’S TESTIMONY RULED INADMISSIBLE

(Rockford, Illinois) World Congress of Families Managing Director Larry Jacobs said he was “appalled but not surprised” by today’s ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court, in effect legislating gay marriage in the state.

Jacobs commented: “The rationale for this ruling is that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is a violation of equal protection for homosexual couples who want to marry, hence unconstitutional.”

“But if not allowing same-sex couples to marry is unconstitutional, what about a brother and sister, or a man and three women who want to marry? On the basis of today’s ruling, aren’t they also denied equal protection under the law by not being allowed to marry?” Jacobs asked.

“Clearly, the ‘equal protection’ argument is a ruse by a court determined to force its social views on the people of Iowa.” Jacobs charged. “Otherwise, it would have ruled that any two people, or group of people, have an equal-protection right to marry in the state.”

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling affirms a 2007 decision of Iowa District Court Judge Robert Hanson.

World Congress of Families International Secretary Allan Carlson, a renowned scholar of the family, was deposed in the Iowa court case. Carlson’s testimony was ruled not admissible in the summary judgment from Judge Hanson. Hanson stated, “Despite Carlson’s impressive academic credentials, the court does not believe he possesses the knowledge or expertise to answer the specific questions propounded to him [specifically, the consequences of marriage for children].”

In a summary of his “Relevant Opinions” (submitted to the court to establish his qualifications as an expert witness), Carlson said of children raised by their married natural parents: “They are less likely to be physically, sexually, or mentally abused, to use illegal drugs, to be involved in the juvenile justice system, to become wards of the state, or to attempt suicide. Marriage law has privileged the sexual relation of man to woman because of these positive effects on children, which have also made valuable contributions to society.”

Carlson was born in Iowa and is the author of more than 10 published books on marriage and family, including “Conjugal America: On the Public Purposes of Marriage” (2006) and “The Natural Family: Bulwark of Liberty” (2008).

World Congress of Families is an international gathering of pro-family leaders, scholars, parliamentarians and activists held every two years. World Congress of Families V will be held in Amsterdam, August 10-12, 2009.

Iowa Supreme Court: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

Fox News reports:

DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where marriage will be legal.

In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge’s ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

“The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion,” said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

From NOM:

In an opinion just released on the Iowa Supreme Court website, the Iowa Supreme Court today struck down the Iowa marriage laws recognizing marriage as the union of a husband and wife.

The ruling, which held that the marriage laws unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, puts the ball back in the court of the state legislature, where a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a husband and wife was introduced last month.

As soon as today’s decision was handed down, we set up an online action center so that Iowa residents can quickly and easily contact their elected officials, urging them to support HJR 6, which gives Iowa voters a chance to have the final say on marriage.

We know that the people of Iowa support marriage — and we need to make sure their legislators get the message: Marriage is too important to leave in the hands of a few judges. Let the people vote!

Marriage does matter.  Let us, those who know of the dangers of the legalization of same-sex marriage, hope that the people of Iowa will soon have an opportunity to cast their vote and amend their constitution so that it defines marriage as it is: a union between a man and a woman.

VIDEO: Highlights from CA Supreme Court: March 5, 2009

SEE ALSO: Prop. 8 UPDATE: CA Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban

Prop. 8 UPDATE: CA Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban

MercuryNews.com reports:

The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.

During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do not believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.

At the same time, even justices who voted against striking down California’s previous ban on gay marriage indicated that Proposition 8 should not wipe out an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place last year. Those couples mobilized around the state to obtain marriage licenses after the Supreme Court ruled last May that California’s prior ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.

Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to confine marriage to heterosexual couples, and its backers insist that the Supreme Court cannot overturn the will of the voters if they choose to change the state constitution.

During today’s arguments, the majority of the court remarked that the current case is very different than last year’s, primarily because the voters amended the constitution the court is bound to follow. “I stand by what I said in the marriage cases,” Justice Joyce Kennard, a key vote in legalizing gay marriage last year, said at one point. “But this case is different. We’re dealing with the power of the people.”

Justice Carol Corrigan, who dissented in last year’s decision, remained reluctant to interfere with voters and legislators.  ”Is the essence of your argument that the people have the right to amend their constitution as long as it isn’t done in a way the Supreme Court doesn’t like?” Corrigan asked one civil rights lawyer.

Christoper Krueger, the senior deputy assistant attorney general who argued for Brown, had the roughest ride during arguments, as all of the justices appeared poised to reject his argument that last year’s ruling created an “inalienable right” for same-sex couples to wed. “What I’m picking up from the argument is that the court should willy, nilly disregard the will of the people,” Kennard told him. “As judges, our powers are limited.”

Prop. 8 UPDATE: Supreme Court sets March 5 for gay marriage arguments
Prop. 8 UPDATE: Judge Refuses Anonymity to Donors
Prop. 8 UPDATE: Militant Homosexual Rights Movement Keeps The Pressure On
Prop. 8 UPDATE: Legal Briefs Filed
Prop. 8 UPDATE: CA Attorney General Changes Position

A Principled Understanding of Same-Sex Politics

Exerpts from LaVarr Christensen’s A Principled Understanding of Same-Sex Politics:

I remember it well. It was 2003 and the Massachusetts Supreme Court had stunned our country with its own radical and unprecedented ruling. They ordered the State of Massachusetts, based on their state Constitution, to immediately grant full, legal recognition of marriage to same-sex couples. Then, in California, after 4.6 million people sought to define the definition of marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman, because they didn’t have the second sentence that we have now adopted in Amendment 3, the California Legislature circumvented the will of the people. They created a parallel system of “domestic partner” legislation. Even now in California, the City of San Francisco and the opponents of “Proposition 8” are appealing the election outcome back to the same Supreme Court whose radical and unprecedented opinion prompted the overriding vote of the people in the first place. What a dizzy series of events.

We can see both the principle and the potential precedent in all this. We choose to oppose those proposals that seek to classify and treat same-sex couples as virtual equivalents of marriage and then compel the official sanctioning and public recognition of same-sex unions.

Again, we stress that all citizens, including same-sex couples, already have full freedom to make hospital visits, transfer property by deed and through inheritance by will, purchase life insurance policies, buy and sell property, and obtain employment.

California’s Proposition 8 was an important moral issue that directly affects the future of traditional marriage throughout our country. No state legislature, no elected branch of government, no direct or indirect manifestation of “We the People” has yet consciously and knowingly tried to redefine marriage and extend it to same-gender couples. However, if the people of California had chosen to ratify the earlier decision of four judges who claimed authority to set aside and disregard the prior direct vote of 4.6 million citizens of their state, that important constitutional principle and precedent would surely be in jeopardy. I am extremely grateful for the 6.8 million voters and all those who contributed so much to the success of Proposition 8 in California.

Same-sex marriage advocates never mention or acknowledge the weight of compelling judicial opinions that uphold traditional marriage nor the fact that 40 states have now adopted either constitutional amendments or statutes to limit marriage to the legal union of a man and a woman.

The whole concept of same-sex marriage falsely assumes that men and women are interchangeable and children are so adaptable that there is no desired norm in our society anymore other than the personal pleasure of adults involved in whatever relationship they may choose to form. In reality, however, as Maggie Gallagher has stated:

“Men and women are not interchangeable units. Sex has a meaning beyond immediate pleasure. Society needs babies, children need mothers and fathers; marriage is a word for the way we join men and women together to make the future happen.”

ADF: Activists filing lawsuit against DOMA, want judge to redefine marriage for everyone

BOSTON — A lawsuit filed by a handful of same-sex couples represented by a homosexual activist group is seeking to have a judge redefine marriage for the entire country, according to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, unconstitutional.

“Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. “America continues to overwhelmingly reaffirm that marriage is one man and one woman. Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?”

• 45 states have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
• All 30 states that have sought to affirm marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions have done so.
• DOMA passed in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of 342–67 in the House and 85–14 in the Senate and was then signed by President Bill Clinton.

“None of these facts appear to matter to the people who have filed this lawsuit,” Raum explained. “They do not care about the negative social impact on children if federal judges redefine marriage. Courts should never impose a system which guarantees that more kids will be brought up in homes without a married mom and dad. How can we justify hurting millions of children for the possible emotional benefit of a very small number of adults?”

The homosexual activist group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders brought the lawsuit on behalf of several individuals involved in homosexual behavior.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE STORY FROM THE AP

Opinion Essay: I Thought Prop 8 Passed. Why do I Still Need to Worry About It?

Because the Governor, the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Supreme Court of California, along with the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara are all conspiring to once again overturn the vote of the people last Nov. 4th. The State Supreme Court will hear arguments and is expected to nullify Prop 8 this Thursday, March 5th!

Why is it important that Prop 8 not be overturned?

1. To Protect our Democracy: The People rule the government in America, not vice-versa!

Prop 8 was written to protect the will of the people of California from being overruled by a handful of politicians in Sacramento and San Francisco. Twice now the people have clearly voted that they want marriage to remain as it has always been, and now once again our government is going to nullify our vote. Allowing four activist judges to overrule the decision of the entire state brings us back to the days of the tyrannies of King George before the Revolution. We live in America and here the people decide their laws. If the people of California want to change the institution of marriage let them so vote in a legal election!

2. To Protect our Civil and Religious Rights: It is not a hate crime to oppose homosexuality!

Our country was founded to be a safe-haven where all men and women could say and practice what they believe without persecution. Americans have fought and died to protect these fundamental freedoms of speech and religious worship. In recent years, however, homosexuals have pressured individuals, private organizations and churches to accept their actions, labeling those who oppose on moral and religious ground as “narrow-minded,” “homophobic” and “bigoted.” Already homosexuals have successfully sued a private photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a lesbian wedding, a New Jersey church that refused to allow gay couple to be married on their property, a gynecologist in California for referring the in vitro fertilization of a lesbian to an associate due to religious beliefs and the Boy Scouts in Berkeley, Calif. for excluding gay men. A Boston Catholic adoption service was forced to close rather than be required to adopt to gay couples and the Christian dating site eHarmony.com was forced to provide dating services for gay and transsexual individuals. Already religious leaders have been prosecuted for making “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality—even reading straight out of the Bible!—and the tax-exempt status of their churches threatened. The names of individuals who donated money in support of Prop 8 were listed on websites by the LA Times, SF Chronicle and Google with encouragement to harass them; several revealed donors were consequently dismissed from their jobs for their support for traditional marriage. There is no place in America for silencing religious belief or coercing people and organizations to support a behavior that goes against their conscience!

3. To Protect Parental Rights: Kids should not be taught in public schools that homosexuality is okay.

At a young, impressionable age it is especially important that our children be taught correct principles and morals. Since California law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage (Education Code §51890), when Prop 8 is overturned teachers will be required to contradict the moral convictions of the majority of the parents and teach our children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional man-woman marriage and that homosexuality is healthy and normal. When one Massachusetts couple tried to prevent their child from being indoctrinated with homosexual teachings in a public school, they were told by the Court of Appeals that because their state recognized gay marriage they did not have a right to opt their children out of it. One 8th grade science teacher in Massachusetts proudly told NPR that she now teaches her classes how to use sex toys and in San Francisco a first grade class went on a field trip to watch a lesbian wedding. It is wrong for our state to teach our children morals that we don’t agree with behind our backs.

4. To Protect our Society and Children: Stable Families = Well-Raised Children = Stable Society

The entire history of mankind offers proof that children are best raised in a stable family of a woman and man who commit to come together for life to support and nurture them. Marriage was created to promote and support this ideal family arrangement. With the increase of children born or raised outside of this ideal, especially those abused or neglected by unfit parents, it is more important than ever that the ideal child-raising situation be honored and protected. A Dutch study concluded that gay couples cannot provide a stable child-raising situation, noting that the average homosexual relationship lasts 1.5 years and even “committed” homosexual couples average eight sexual partners outside of the relationship per year. By diluting marriage to include any relationship desired, we will seriously undermine its meaning and value; hence, our society and children will suffer.

5. Gay “Marriage” Is NOT About “Love” or “Civil Rights”: It is about forcing approval of homosexuality

Homosexuals defend their intimidation and undemocratic actions by claiming that their “civil rights” are being violated when they are not allowed to “follow their hearts” and have their relationships recognized by all as marriage. In reality, however, gays already have every right that heterosexuals do: They can marry or remain single, and they can engage in any kind of relationship or activity they desire, so long as it is legal. California has even created “domestic partnerships” as an alternative for committed same-sex couples to “have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses.” (California Family Code §297.5) There is no restriction whatsoever on a gay couple’s ability to love or practice sexual relations with their partner. But homosexuals are not satisfied with mere tolerance or equal rights: their agenda is to force everyone to approve of their actions. Homosexuals do not have the right to take away everyone else’s rights by forcing them to change their definition of the fundamental unit of society to include same-sex relationships. Already polygamists and pedophiles have begun to cite gay marriage laws as legal justification for their actions. To be able to force everyone to recognize anything you want to be marriage is not a civil right!

Marriage is not a vehicle for social recognition of morally taboo behaviors. It is a protected and honored arrangement designed to promote the raising of children in an ideal environment, the way nature intended. Prop 8 is not about denying rights to homosexuals: They retain every right that heterosexuals do . . . plus the right to a same-sex “civil union” that state law ensures is equal to marriage in all ways but name. They have no right to force the rest of society to change their moral convictions to fit their fancy. Twice, the people of California voted in fair elections for marriage to remain solely between a man and a woman. The government of California should abide by the democratic voice of its people and not tyrannically impose its will on them.

SOURCE: Good Sense Politics