What a shock! An openly gay judge overturned California's Prop 8, thereby dismissing the wishes of seven million Californians. Was this case not a conflict of interest? How objective could a homosexual judge be in such a case? Are we expected to believe that his personal sexual orientation did not sway his opinion? This is a disgrace! U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from this case.
I received the following email from Dr. Robert George of the American Principles Project:
"'Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of "raw judicial power" threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,' said Dr. Robert P. George, Founder of the American Principles Project. 'In striking down California's conjugal marriage law, Judge Walker has arrogated to himself a decision of profound social importance-the definition and meaning of marriage itself-that is left by the Constitution to the people and their elected representatives.'
'As a decision lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, it abuses and dishonors the very charter in whose name Judge Walker declares to be acting. This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand.'
Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger seeks to invalidate California Proposition 8, which by vote of the people of California restored the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife after California courts had re-defined marriage to include same-sex partnerships.
'The claim that this case is about equal protection or discrimination is simply false,' George said. 'It is about the nature of marriage as an institution that serves the interests of children-and society as a whole-by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its wonderful and, indeed, unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.
'We are talking about the right to define what marriage is, not about who can or cannot take part. Under our Constitution the definition and meaning of marriage is a decision left in the hands of the people, not given to that small fraction of the population who happen to be judges.'
'Judge Walker has abandoned his role as an impartial umpire and jumped into the competition between those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife and those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution. Were his decision to stand, it would ensure additional decades of social dissension and polarization. Pro-marriage Americans are not going to yield to sexual revolutionary ideology or to judges who abandon their impartiality to advance it. We will work as hard as we can for as long as it takes to defend the institution of marriage and to restore the principle of democratic self-government,' concluded Dr. George."