Judicial Activism Is Gay (Blog)

Supporters of gay marriage have been celebrating the honeymoon of their recent victory over Proposition 8 in California. In what they believe is a move towards greater freedom and liberty, Judge Vaughn Walker repealed the California law banning same-sex marriage. But as with all marriages, the union between gay rights activists and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California brings with it unexpected baggage.

In order to fully understand that issue, one must be familiar with the structure of government in the United States. Unfortunately, the liberal influence over education has stunted the intellectual growth of the populace and twisted the understanding of our government to fit the desires of the few, rather than the good of the many. Though it may be hard to believe, there are people who do not know that there are three tiers of government. Even those who are aware of the three tiers sometimes have difficulty naming them or explaining their functions. Many are ignorant to the system of checks and balances and do not understand that this system is being violated.

Let’s review, shall we? Our federal government is made up of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. The Executive Branch is largely administrative, meaning its job is to run the federal government in a similar way to that of a corporation. Its job is to execute the operation of the government, to keep it running, to administer the bureaucracy of our national government. The Legislative Branch, Congress, is tasked with the job of enacting legislation (passing laws), confirming or rejecting Presidential appointments, declaring war and has the power to perform important investigations.

For now, the Judicial Branch is where our interest lies. This third tier of government is responsible for trying cases and ensuring that the application of federal law is carried out in legal matters. This branch is supposed to enforce the laws that Congress passes, not interpreting but applying national law. In other words, the Judicial Branch is not a legislative body. Judges are not legislators. Judges do not pass or repeal laws. Except when they do.

There is a very strong argument for supporters of gay marriage to be against the repeal of Proposition 8 in this way. In overstepping his bounds and violating the restrictions of the Judicial Branch, Judge Walker has set a dangerous precedent. If this ruling is upheld, especially when the case reaches the Supreme Court of the United States, it is giving tacit approval to judicial activism, also known as “Your Votes Don’t Matter.” If judges are allowed to enact or repeal laws outside of the constitutionally mandated role assigned to the Judicial Branch, the power of the voters is drastically diminished, and eventually the will of the people will be irrelevant. In a less abstract example, this means if laws favoring “gay rights” are ever passed, it will only take an anti-gay judge to get rid of those laws.

The California state constitution requires all state legislation to be put on a ballot and a majority vote must pass the proposition for it to become state law. This means that the majority of California residents voted to pass Proposition 8. The majority of Californians wanted same-sex marriage banned. This means a minority of California residents did not want the law to pass. When the votes were tallied, the majority spoke and the proposition became law. Same-sex marriage was banned.

There is a constitutional means by which to fight the law, but it is fair to speculate that it would not succeed. Opponents of Proposition 8 could have petitioned to have a repeal of the law placed on a ballot for residents to vote on. If a majority voted to repeal the law it would be repealed. If a majority did not support repealing the law it would remain on the books. Again, it is fair to speculate that this attempt would not succeed. Likely the fear that such action would fail is the reason opponents of Proposition 8 chose to pursue the repeal of the law via the Federal Judicial Branch.

Judge Vaughn’s ruling will be challenged and appealed, and it is likely we will see the case go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Should the ruling be upheld at that level, a citizen’s right to vote will no longer hold any value. The people who say their vote doesn’t count will finally be correct. Such an outcome will mean the Judicial Branch has supreme authority over all matters legal and legislative, which further extends into authority over the Executive Branch by default, since the Executive Branch is under the jurisdiction of Congress due to Congressional influence over the Constitution itself. Worse, if the Judicial Branch is allowed to interpret the Constitution to fit its own agenda, the actual text of the Constitution will be second to the desires of activist judges.

Americans, even gay Americans, cannot afford this. Especially gay Americans. This is a matter concerning all citizens. This is not just about gay marriage. This is about all freedoms, all liberties, and all rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If people are concerned that their rights are in danger, are being violated, are being denied, then they need to consider what can happen when seven men and women control all aspects of the application of the Constitution of the United States.

If the words of Patrick Henry, “give me liberty or give me death,” are to be taken seriously, we cannot allow this to run such a dangerous course. If this judicial activism is allowed to take root we must choose death because we will no longer be

Why wasn’t this judge(an avowed homosexual)recused from this case?The”conflict of interest”is palpable!

Judicial Branch is allowed to interpret (change) the Constitution to fit its own agenda, the actual text of the Constitution will be second to the desires of activist judges.
Gay’s can’t win and they know it but you will never hear them admit it.

I’m predicting that if Walker’s dicision in this case is upheld, he will soon take advantage of his own opinion and get “married” (to another man.) By that time, too much water will have passed under the bridge for his attrocious bias to be scrutinized and acted upon. “Oh, well!”

Why wasn’t this judge(an avowed homosexual)recused from this case? The”conflict of interest”is palpable!

Because it is almost impossible to find someone completely neutral on a subject. His bias certainly came out in the opinion, which was virtually a lecture about how great homosexuality is. However, if a Christian straight judge had upheld Prop. 8, the outcry would have been that the judge was a homophobic Christian.

The judge's opinion was so over-the-top and so far removed from the constitution that the homos may regret having shopped the case to him. His decision may be overturned on the grounds that his ruling was little more than a hissy fit.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.