U.S. District Judge Overturns California’s Prop 8

U.S. District Judge Overturns California’s Prop 8

In a stunning display of judicial arrogance, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California’s Prop 8—California’s Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.   This is the first case in U.S. history where “thoughts, motivations, and personal beliefs” of seven million voters were put on trial for “improper intent.”

Daniel Blomerg, attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, characterized it this way:  “It’s not just marriage that was put on trial, but the fundamental freedom of having your vote count and having the liberty to express and live by your beliefs.  It’s pretty shocking.”

Judge Walker declared Prop 8 to be “unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses,” referring to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.   In his 136-page decision on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Walker stated in part:

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently; thus, these interests do not provide a rational basis supporting Proposition 8.

We find that to be an astounding few sentences; conclusive evidence “that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.” Amazing….   UFI has spent the last 15 years compiling research and empirical data that shows the critical importance of man/woman marriage to children and to society.

We state again:  “Marriage is a unique, opposite-sex union with legal, social, economic and spiritual dimensions.  It is a fundamental and universal social institution and the mechanism by which every known society seeks to obtain for each the love, attention and resource of BOTH a mother and a father.”

This understanding is not “irrational, discriminatory, nor unconstitutional” as Judge Walker claims.

On Tuesday evening, the Prop 8 defense team filed a motion with Walker asking for a “stay” on same-sex marriages in California until the appeal process is completed.  As of this post, Walker has not responded with his decision.

It is important to realize that this decision makes this case no longer just a “California issue.”  This has ramifications that will impact every state.  Appeals will go to the 9th Circuit and then potentially on to the U.S. Supreme Court where the entire nation’s definition of marriage hangs in the balance.

More quotes from the Prop 8 decision:

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.”

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. 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.”

  • azconserv1
    Posted at 12:47h, 05 August

    I was shocked at how badly Judge Walker mischaracterized the stability of homosexual relationships, his animus for Christianity, his bias, his acceptance of unsubstantiated statements by plaintiffs’ witnesses, and his disputing that law not be based on moral considerations!! ALL LAWS ARE BASED ON SOMEONE’S MORALITY! He needed to read UFI’s Guides to Family Issues!

  • Richard Noel Pedersen
    Posted at 00:36h, 06 August

    It sounds as if the same sex people want to take away the rights of heterosexual people, Christians and any others who aren’t the same as them, while crying about their ‘rights’ being taken from them. Wait and see, this is only a test, to see if the same sex rules can be brought in all around the world. New Zealand has a civil union law that alows same sex couples to marry, Many Christians & non-Christians were opposed to it, but the government of the day went ahead with it anyway.

Post A Comment