Gay Judge Will Decide on Prop 8

Now, what is the likelihood of a just ruling being handed down on California's Proposition 8? With an activist gay judge--not likely.

What is it these people do not understand about the fact that Californians have spoken? They do NOT want gay marriage.

Read from One News Now:

Is the 'gay' fix in on Prop. 8?
Matt Barber

"Last weekend the San Francisco Chronicle 'outed' Proposition 8 Judge Vaughn Walker as an active practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle: 'The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay,' revealed the Chronicle.

Judge Walker has presided over California's Prop. 8 case filed by homosexual extremists who seek to manufacture a constitutional 'right' to so-called 'same-sex marriage.' The legal odd-couple of former Bush attorney Ted Olson and Gore lawyer David Boies have partnered to represent the activist plaintiffs.

The revelation that Judge Walker apparently chooses to engage in homosexual conduct, if true, would explain much of his bizarre behavior throughout this trial. At every turn he's displayed extreme bias in favor of his similarly situated homosexual activist plaintiffs.

These individuals have eschewed the democratic process and seek to employ like-minded judicial activists to radically redefine the millennia-old definition of natural marriage. When it comes to wildly unpopular social engineering schemes such as the imposition of 'gay marriage' on the American people, arbitrary edict by way of judicial fiat is the left's tool of choice.

Enter Judge Walker. In unprecedented form, and to plaintiffs' delight, he has created a circus-like atmosphere throughout. He even violated federal rules by deciding to allow the trial to be broadcast worldwide, but was subsequently shot down and sharply rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court for doing so.

Unfortunately, the damage was already done. Prop. 8 supporters lost around two-thirds of their expert witnesses who, naturally – based on homosexuals' violent reaction to passage of Prop. 8 – feared for their own safety and for that of family members.

Judge Walker then ordered Prop. 8 proponents to disclose private communications, work product, emails and campaign strategies to plaintiffs while – in an example of jaw-dropping inequality – permitting plaintiffs to keep the same materials secret.

He also allowed plaintiffs a parade of 'expert' witnesses who viciously maligned Christians and other observers of natural and historic sexual morality as 'prejudiced,' 'bigoted' and 'homophobic.'

This is no different than having an avid gun dealer/collector preside over a Second Amendment case – or a frequent user of medical marijuana deciding the legality of medical marijuana.

Even his fellow judges on the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have been forced to step-in and overturn more than one of his inexplicable rulings on the case.

Unfortunately, based on his demonstrated misbehavior, there's no reason to believe any of that will change. At worst, Judge Walker's continued involvement with this case presents a textbook conflict of interest. At best, it objectively illustrates the unseemly appearance of a conflict.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution – who referred to homosexuality as 'the sin that dare not speak its name' – could not have even conceptualized the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of 'gay marriage,' much less considered it a constitutional right. Still, if Judge Walker miraculously divines from thin air that Patrick Henry had a fundamental 'right' to marry Henry Patrick, then who among us will be surprised?

Yes, he could stun the world and place constitutionalism – which he's sworn to observe – above personal ideology; but, based on his actions throughout this trial, I'm betting the fix is in.

This much is for sure: Any decision favoring plaintiffs in this case will be permanently marred and universally viewed as stemming from Judge Walker's personal biases and alleged lifestyle choices.

For these reasons, and in the interest of justice, he should now do the honorable thing and recuse himself."