Federal District Court Abuses Constitution And Rules California's Proposition 8 Is Unconstitutional, Appeal Promised

The Alliance Defense Fund reports that attorneys "representing ProtectMarriage.com will appeal a federal judge’s decision Wednesday that declared California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys are litigating the lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, together with lead counsel Charles J. Cooper and ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno, who represent the official proponents and campaign committee of California’s Proposition 8... In May 2009, attorneys representing two men and two women who were denied marriage licenses filed suit against the new amendment, challenging its constitutionality. Amendment defenders were allowed to intervene in the lawsuit in July. Closing arguments in the trial were held on June 16."

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”

“The majority of California voters simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage. The other side’s attack upon their good will and motives is lamentable and preposterous,” Raum said. “Imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.”

“What’s at stake here is bigger than California,” Pugno added. “Americans in numerous states have affirmed--and should be allowed to continue to affirm--a natural and historic public policy position like this. We are prepared to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.”

The fact is that this judge was exercising raw naked illegitimate power while making a mockery of the Constitution.

Two centuries of American law and jurisprudence, and centuries more of Western civilization generally, challenged by a single judge sitting in San Francisco overturning the democratic will of the people of the State citing Constitutional provisions ratified in 1868 meant to protect freed blacks as the basis for a subversion of the democratic process and an abuse of the judicial role in order to do nothing more than impose his own social views. Whether gays should be able to wed should be left to State legislature's to decide either way, not left with one black robbed lawyer that simply disagrees with seven million voting citizens of his State and seeks to impose his rules on every other State as well.

The centuries of American law are the State marriage laws that were always applied only to unions of men and women. The fact is that within Supreme Court jurisprudence no previous court has gone so far, this ruling is by its very nature unprecedented. Even in one of the Supreme Court precedents known as Lawrence v. Texas (a precedent which established a Constitutional right to engage in sodomy earlier this decade), which was most helpful to the judge in issuing his ruling, the Supreme Court specifically made sure to add in a sentence in its ruling saying they they were not at all addressing the issue of marriage. This judge's ruling would effectively redefine marriage nationwide to include gay couples, and that does indeed go against centuries of laws and jurisprudence and has little basis in the Constitution. Imposing one's own view, creating new "rights" out of thin air while at the same time allowing unlimited federal government growth and power because it allows for your personal views to be furthered, is the essence of activist judging. Tweet