We have reached a crossroads. Now lone unelected, unaccountable judges think they can overrule the will of the voters. The Los Angeles Times reports that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled California’s Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional:
A federal judge declared California’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that “moral disapproval” was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.
California “has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions,” U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said in his 136-page ruling.
The ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds. Previous cases have cited state constitutions.
First, this is a gross violation of state’s rights in clear contradiction of the 10th Amendment, in effect this is like ruling the Constitution unconstitutional. This judge now made marriage a federal issue when Courts tried to avoid making it so. While I’m sure there is much celebration in the homosexual community, this ruling in fact will open up a can of worms. Can you say – Federal Marriage Amendment? The push for that did seam to die down with a string of state electoral victories when marriage was on the ballot, and federal courts stayed out of it. This will also likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court and will test Elena Kagan’s statement (under oath) there is no constitutional right to gay marriage.
Ironically this ruling contradicts the ruling in Massachusetts that declared the Federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional as Judge Joseph L. Tauro in one of two rulings he issued in the matter that DOMA was unconstitutional based on the 10th Amendment. So it’s unconstitutional for Congress to tell a state how federal money should be spent because of how the Congress defined marriage, but it’s ok for a Federal judge to do it?
Well I’m sure he considers his ruling the “law of the land” as well. I’m sure his background didn’t color his decision even one iota (he’s homosexual). What is ironic is that the California Supreme Court (not exactly a conservative bunch) upheld the people’s right to vote on the manner even if it went against a prior ruling. So I guess he knows better than them as well.
Well, but hey, at least we know who to thank for the extra 7% turnout in November.
Update: And the predicted calls for a Federal Marriage Amendment begin. I think those celebrating this ruling now are going to end up regretting it later.
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- Young Endorsed By Pro-Life Group in Iowa 3rd Congressional District Race - July 19, 2018
- Iowa Ethics Board Reprimands Jim Mowrer for Illegal PAC Donation - July 18, 2018
- Iowa Congressional Delegation Responds to Trump-Putin Summit - July 16, 2018