The Arrogance Of Judicial Power

From Alliance Defense Fund and The Washington Times:

EDITORIAL: The arrogance of judicial power


Homosexuals hijack political process for their own ends

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

-

The Washington Times

7:19 p.m., Thursday, August 5, 2010

Hundreds of same-sex marriage supporters march through San Francisco celebrating a federal judge's decision overturning California's same-sex marriage ban on Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights. (AP Photo/Noah Berger) PrintEmailView 23Comment(s)Enlarge Text
ShrinkClick-2-ListenSocial NetworksFacebookTwitterQuestion of the DayDo you think ethics charges against Rep. Maxine Waters hurt the Democrats in the midterm elections?

Yes

No

Undecided

Other





Login to Vote



View results

A homosexual judge branded 7,001,084 California voters as hateful people on Wednesday. In so doing, Vaughn R. Walker, a man never elected to his lifetime position, decided he would reshape the state to better suit his personal lifestyle preference. In striking down Proposition 8's simple statement that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," Judge Vaughn undermined not just the political process, but society itself.



At the heart of the matter is the belief of the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that there is no problem with Heather having two mommies. Those who do have a problem with such arrangements, in his words, can only be motivated by irrational "fear" and "animus." By discarding the possibility that centuries of tradition might have a rational basis, Judge Vaughn declared Proposition 8 cannot be allowed to interfere with homosexuals' "fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause."



The claim is that no government interest could be found in preferring the union of traditional couples to that of homosexual couples. "The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry," Mr. Vaughn asserted. "Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."



With a swish of his pen, Judge Vaughn discardedthe most fundamental of all government interests - the preservation of society itself. If everyone were to adopt the lifestyle choice that Judge Vaughn deemed harmless, within a matter of generations society would be extinct. While not all traditional marriages involve the raising of families, most do, and promoting this positive outcome falls among the most basic duties of government. When Judge Vaughn divorces marriage from the raising of biological families, he sets the stage for an "anything goes" social order.



Judge Vaughn's social experiment is nothing new. Ancient Rome's brutal emperor Nero is known to history as one of the earliest practitioners of a same-sex partnership that carried the sanction of the state. As the historian Suetonius described, Nero took a boy and "endeavored to transform him into a woman, he even went so far as to marry him with all the usual formalities of a marriage settlement."



With the power to impose laws contrary to popular will, Nero, like Judge Vaughn, wanted the community to embrace his unnatural way of life. It didn't last long. In the contemporary case, there is little doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually utter the final verdict on California's Proposition 8, hopefully rejecting Judge Vaughn's transparent activism. It is not the business of one man - or one set of nine - to reshape society to suit his fancy.



© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission