NOM BLOG

NOM Decries Federal Court Decision Invalidating Proposition 8

 

"With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”

-Brian Brown, President of NOM-

(Washington, D.C.) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today decried the decision of U.S. Circuit Court Judge Vaughn Walker to invalidate California’s Proposition 8, an amendment which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman:

“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM.  "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”

"Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!” added Brown.

“The ‘trial’ in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.  We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage,” stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.

“Gay marriage groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, and Equality California will, no doubt, be congratulating themselves over this “victory” today in San Francisco. However, even they know that Judge Walker’s decision is only temporary.  For the past 20 years, gay marriage groups have fought to avoid cases filed in federal court for one good reason – they will eventually lose.  But these groups do not have control of the Schwarzenegger v. Perry case, which is being litigated by two egomaniacal lawyers (Ted Olson and David Boies). So while they congratulate themselves over their victory before their home-town judge today, let’s not lose sight of the fact that this case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, where the right of states to define marriage as being between one man and one woman will be affirmed—and if the Supreme Court fails, Congress has the final say. The rights of millions of voters in states from Wisconsin to Florida, from Maine to California, are at stake in this ruling; NOM is confident that the Supreme Court will affirm the basic civil rights of millions of American voters to define marriage as one man and one woman,” noted Gallagher.

The National Organization for Marriage is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, [email protected], (x105), or Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], (x130) at  703-683-5004.

49 Comments

  1. Jakes
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    There was no logic to his conclusion no rational basis whatsoever in his ruling and conclusion of law. Totally ignoring the peoples right to vote.

  2. Ron
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Justice was done in CA today. Prop 8 was a disgrace to our nation.

  3. Tina Hyatt
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    As a Christian American I am angered by the fact that this judge let his belief system cloud his decision. This Judge took it upon himself to decide for Millions of Americans how we feel about same-sex marriage. I feel that if the US Supreme Court rules the same as him Congress won't because they know who pays their paycheck and who put them in office. I will be writing my Congressman to remind him of who put him in office.

  4. roberto
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Taking away the vote of the people is unconstitutional!

  5. TC Matthews
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    If Judge Walker had used his court in a proper way for the duration of the trial, the decision he made against marriage would have had a lot more credibility and weight. No matter what side of the issue you are on, you have to know that his bias and heavy handed tipping of the scales during the trial which prompted higher courts to rebuke him---- TWICE ---- is going to come back to bite him. He may have just seen the end of his credibility as a Justice.

  6. L. Marie
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional . . . again. Seriously. Why do we even vote when one person can overturn the will of hundreds of thousands? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

  7. James N.
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    He should have recused himself, just to avoid the image of impropriety. As it is, people will always wonder, and assume he made those bad judgments out of an inappropriate personal bias.

  8. Adam
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Immorality is no longer a rational reason to vote according to this judge. It says a lot about his ruling.

  9. Clarice James
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    According to the government, the voice of the people is considered ignorant while the government has the voice of sanity. If we can't speak for ourselves, we will be controlled by goverment. Our "free" America is shifting to a "you-better-believe-what-goverment-says-or-else" America.

  10. Bill
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    It is self-evident that neither Mr. Brown nor Ms. Gallagher (or for that matter, any of the commentators here) even bothered to read the decision prior to “responding” to it. Do you people have anything to offer besides rank name-calling? Seriously, anything? This is fundamental American civics: “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’ West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943).” Decision at 116:25-117:1.

    Read a book or something. Educate yourself. Raise your consciousness. Get a life. Have a nice day.

  11. Jacy
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Bill, the reality is that people who choose lifestyles out of the norm are not minorities, they are users of free choice. Are polygamists minorities as well?

    People are people. We're all equal.

  12. James N.
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    Right on. There is no fundamental right to marry anyone or anything or any number of ones or things. You can shack up with anyone you want, but there is only one marriage, and everyone has access to it--- equally.

  13. Samantha
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    This month a federal judge in Massachusetts threw out a Congressional law which defined marriage as the union of man and woman.

    Soon a federal judge in California is going to rule in a lawsuit challenging “Proposition 8," the referendum by which California’s voters kept the traditional meaning of marriage in their law.

    If the pending ruling throws out Prop. 8 – as it very likely will – it would be the biggest victory so far for those promoting same-sex marriage in the United States.

    These high stakes have attracted a lot of attention to the California case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. But not enough attention – in fact, almost none – has been paid to one very troubling aspect of the case.

    This is the question of the judge’s bias due to his possible interest in which side wins the case.

    Judge Vaughan Walker has surprised just about everyone with his unorthodox handling of the Prop. 8 trial.

    Supporters describe him as iconoclastic and creative. Those less enamored have charged him with turning the proceedings into a sensationalized show-trial.

    Both sets of observers could probably agree with the explanation offered by conservative commentator Ed Whelan who has observed that Walker has been determined from the outset “to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.”

    I do not doubt that Judge Walker made up his mind about Prop 8 before the trial began.

    But that is not the bias that has received too little attention.

    Battalions of commentators have wondered about his bizarre handling of the case, and many have attributed it to Walker’s belief that it is unjust for the law to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

    Nor is the neglected bias related to the fact that (as several newspapers have reported) the judge is openly gay.

    Of course, Walker’s opinions about marriage and sexual preference could be related to his own homosexuality.

    But even if they are, it does not follow that he would be incapable of being impartial and of rendering a judgment in accord with the law in the Prop. 8 case – any more than a happily married heterosexual would necessarily be.

    In fact, all judges have beliefs and personal habits which intersect from time to time with the matters in dispute before them. We do not require judges to be blank slates without a personal life. Judges are not automatons.

    All we ask and what we rightly expect is that judges put aside those things insofar as they might interfere with deciding a case fairly and in accord with the law.

    But no one is immune to all conflicts of interest or of belief.

    So our law rightly requires that public officials – judges included – stay out of matters in which they have a financial stake. It is not that everyone would be corrupted by the prospect of financial gain. Not at all.

    But some people would be corrupted. And everyone can have greater confidence in the outcome of public deliberations when they know that at least one temptation towards corruption has been removed.

    The neglected bias in the Prop. 8 trial has instead to do with the fact that – as reported in The Los Angeles Times last month – Judge Walker “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician.”

    If (as The Times suggests) Judge Walker is in a stable same-sex relationship, then he might wish or even expect to wed should same-sex marriage become legally available in California.

    This raises an important and serious question about his fitness to preside over the case. Yet it is a question that received almost no attention.

    When a judge is obliged to withdraw from a case due to a conflicting interest we call it “recusal.”

    Federal law requires that, whenever a judge knows that he has “any other interest [ that is, besides a financial interest] that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” at hand, or when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”, he must recuse himself.

    I am not saying that Judge Walker should have refused himself in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

    I am not saying so because nowhere (as far as I know) has Judge Walker volunteered or been made to answer questions about how the outcome of that case would affect his interest (whatever it is) in marrying, and thus his interest in the manifold tangible and intangible benefits of doing so.

    That is a conversation worth having.

    And, sadly, it is quite too late to have it.

  14. Samantha
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    "Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view."

  15. Kim
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    He got slapped down by the high court twice? Yeah, this guy wasn't biased or anything.

  16. Koinosuke
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    The reason for the constitution is to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. So yes a Judge can undo the votes of the majority.

  17. Powell
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    To all those saying that the judge is usurping our right to vote, I would just like to say that that is not true. There is a reason judges are allowed to do things like overturning prop 8, the reason being that the majority shouldn't be able to impose its will on the minority.

  18. Freedom
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    I'm hearing a lot of people belly aching that "civil rights shouldn't be voted on." They're absolutely right, but there is no fundamental right to redefine marriage to better suit your personal tastes.

    This judge ought to be ashamed for using a court the people pay for to push his personal agenda.

  19. Janet
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    All votes disadvantage the minority. That's how voting works! What a place this would be if we voted and the people who lost ran the show! lol. Try another crack at your constitution. It's useful.

  20. Michelle
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    I am so happy that this has happened, it gives me faith. Congratulations California!!!!!!!!

    Now for the other 45 states.

    I'm in a heterosexual relationship and won't get married until everyone can get married. It is hatred and bigotry that threatens my idea of marriage my family values.

  21. Trevor
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Wow, as if there was any doubt that the conservative right was irrelevant in todays society, this is the final nail in the coffin.

  22. John
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    "Why would he recuse himself? This was his opportunity for activism. Activist judges don't rule based on law or ethics... they rule based upon their own beliefs. He's just doing what he does. Just like when Elena Kegan was asked if she would recuse herself from the cases she's already seen and been a part of. Her answer was that she would look at them on an "individual basis." Which means, no, she wouldn't recuse herself. "

  23. Dana
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    This decision is only the beginning of the fight. Get your popcorn guys, we're in it for the long haul.

  24. john desabato
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps after a few more losses, NOM can look to work at the real issues of marriage. Why over 50% end in divorce.

  25. James
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    "Perhaps after a few more losses, NOM can look to work at the real issues of marriage. Why over 50% end in divorce."

    Oddly enough, the acceleration of divorce rates and the increase in the acceptance of deviant lifestyles mirror one another as our culture continues to move away from solid family values. It's all part of the same fight.

  26. Whit
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    Why do you bigots even care? Really? If you don't want gay marriage, then don't get one. Grow up, shut up, and get a life! Who would Jesus discriminate against and who are you to judge?! Mind your own business and let people you don't know be happy. Hyprocritical bigots! Liberty and justice for all!

  27. Rene Olivarez
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    I love how the same SSM commenters who a few posts back were saying that marriage was outmoded and broken while advocating the promotion of the gay agenda in schools with full color graphic sex guides now have their halos on to support marriage... in just another flavor. Unfortunately the enthusiasm appears to only be skin deep.

  28. Luke
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    All these complaints about a "vote" being overturned. What happened with Prop 8 is what is known as "mob rule" which is exactly what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent with a representative system. Morals cannot be pushed on others and votes cannot be used to take rights away from others.

  29. Francine
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    Since the "animal rights" people are making headway in the legal sphere getting animals recognized as "persons," the redefinition of marriiage as a union of two persons may come to mean ... something unspeakable. How far will the madness go? More and more each day, I come to realize better why Plato thought democracy one of the worst forms of government.

  30. Jose
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    "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." -- SF Gate

    Bias?

  31. Jose
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    "There is no core civil right to vote on marriage by the way. You have a right to vote for elected officials but that's about it."

    er, and um, laws? laws like marriage laws?

  32. Robert
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    When was the last time you voted on a law? Your legislators do, but you don't.

  33. Jose
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    "When was the last time you voted on a law? Your legislators do, but you don't."

    Now I see why there's a confusion about the constitution. You don't have a copy.

  34. TC Matthews
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    "When was the last time you voted on a law? Your legislators do, but you don't."

    Robert,
    In California voters vote on many things, including leaders, judges and laws.

  35. TC Matthews
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    .... in fact this isn't the first time California's voted on it's marriage law, proposition 22 was also a law we voted on.

  36. Martin
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    History will always question his judgment and wonder. No matter what side of the issue you fall on, this information does nothing but cast doubt on the legitimacy of this court and its proceedings.

  37. Martin
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    ""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." -- SF Gate"

    If that is true, it would explain a lot. Why was Judge Walker so eager to break federal court rules against televising hearings? Why was he so eager to deny the defense their first amendment rights by trying to force them to disclose private campaign documents?

  38. Evil Baby Fauvel
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Why was Judge Walker so eager to break federal court rules against televising hearings?

    Uh, televised hearings would have provided ... brace yourself ... transparency! Who could possibly be against that?

  39. Martin
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    "Uh, televised hearings would have provided ... brace yourself ... transparency! Who could possibly be against that?"

    Transcripts provide ample transparency. Televised hearings would have tampered with the judge who may be concerned about appearance and politics rather than truth, or the lawyers who could have used the free television access to promote an agenda of their own, trying their case in the court of opinion rather than in the court of law.

    As it was, Judge Walker did everything he could to prostitute his court for the benefit of LGBT leadership.

  40. Everything Crooked Laid Straight
    Posted August 4, 2010 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Rom. 1:21-32; Rom. 2:6-8; Rom. 2:12-16 .... chew on that & have a nice day. Whether you're a believer or not is of no consequence to God. A great & terrible day of Judgment will still come upon US ALL. Hell is too hot, & eternity is too long, people.... Say what you want, but no weapon formed against God's Kingdom shall prosper, & every tongue that rises against it in judgment is already condemned.

  41. HCT
    Posted August 5, 2010 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    ONCE again - one left-wing judge over-rules the will of millions of California voters. There have always been rules regarding marriage - and for thousands of years marriage has been between a man and woman. Why change it now? We have civil unions - so anyone can be joined as domestic partners.

  42. HCT
    Posted August 5, 2010 at 1:05 am | Permalink

    I guess gay marriage would be great for family law attorneys - because then we will have gay divorces. It's interesting that the couple that got this whole movement going got divorced two years after being "married" as husband and husband.

  43. HCT
    Posted August 5, 2010 at 1:07 am | Permalink

    Does anyone remember Rose Bird? She and all of the other justices that ruled against the death penalty in California were ousted by the voters of California. Hey - if you don't like this judge - get him out of office at the ballot box.

  44. greg davis
    Posted August 5, 2010 at 3:18 am | Permalink

    Wah wah wah - you lost!!! thank you judge walker!! You're a hero!!!

  45. Rev. Ilene Blanche
    Posted August 5, 2010 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    I am appalled! And cry out to all like minded Believers to rise up visibly in public squares to oppose this extremely ungodly move in our Nation. We must stop this momentum of dark thinking now!!

  46. Posted August 5, 2010 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    First thing we (as individuals and as a nation) MUST do is to Pray for Our Nation and Leaders. and pray that we repent and return to God our Father whom this mighty nation was built on.
    Almost everyone believer that we need to have our freedom BUT They refuse to accept that our freedoms come with responsibilities.
    We MUST pray for our leaders regardless if we like, voted for, them or not. The Bible tells us to pray for them. and, It does NOT say To pray for them Only if you voted for them. BUT TO PRAY FOR OUR LEADERS AND RULERS.
    Pray that their eyes and hearts will be turned towards God and His ways.
    God made Adam and Eve. NOT Adam and Steve or Eve and Yvette.
    This nation was Voted to be a Christian Nation. The Tie Braking vote was cast by Who? A NON-Christian Believing person. An atheist.. Yes it is true. Read your history books. I learned this in the 3rd Grade. We are a nation Ruled By the People For the people.. Not Self Gratifying Wimps for their own selfish, Distorted, views. But Men and Women for the People.
    Yes Everyone Has a Right to their own opinion. But, Just like yelling Fire in a crowded building when there is no fire, We Must be responsible when we use our opinions. If it will Harm and Not Save We MUST Keep it to ourselves.
    God Does nothing (that is our Free Will) until We pray AND Repent (Change Our Ways or Ask for His Help to do so).
    God talks about Blessings and Curses in His Word, (Read Revelations) . Me I am Blessed and want to continue to be Blessed. That is why I can Not keep silent, when I read or Hear about wrong doings or sayings.
    This is my opinions and You have the Freedom to agree or Disagree and I disagree with Judge Walker. 1 Judge should not have the right to strike any law unless it is Unconstitutional. They have the right to their opinions, and Beliefs.
    But not to force it on us. I know some Christians try to Force you in to believing our way. This are usually young Christians and Don't yet Know how to share in Love and Give you the choice.
    We all have to stand accountable for all that we have done that we have not placed under the Blood of Jesus Christ and asked For His forgiveness.
    Good or Bad. We Can never Work our way in to Heaven! We can only ask Jesus Christ to become our Lord and Savior. Believe that He died for All of our sins (wrong doings) and Repent and Not do them anymore. If we do we need to ask Him to for give us again and He will. But that Does NOT give us a right to sin, or condemn others but to show them the Light of Jesus Christ and His Love.
    We are commanded to Walk in the Love of Jesus Christ.
    Enough of my comments for now.

  47. Jasper
    Posted August 5, 2010 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    The whole nation is watching, and the whole nation should be quaking to think that a single judge sitting in California can reverse the will of 7 million voters.

  48. Sally
    Posted August 5, 2010 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    We're all human beings. I don't know why the gay community insists on being considered less than everyone else. There's no difference between someone who chooses one lifestyle and someone who chooses another. This fight is about the quality of those choices, not the quality of those people. The idea that your choice is your proverbial skin color is just a cheap shot at not having to answer for the quality of your choices.

    In general, I don't care about other people's choices, until they infringe upon the rights of others. Kids have rights too. Every child has the right to have a chance to be raised by a mom and a dad. Creating motherless and fatherless children on purpose is a travesty. Kids have rights too.

    Parents of school age children also have rights. I have the right to expect that the dogmatic ideals of a fringe group will not be forced on my school age children. I've been appalled at the reports coming out of Alameda School District where LGBT activists have infringed on the rights of parents by forcing the gay agenda into even elementary school classrooms.

    We're all God's Children, but that doesn't mean everything his children choose to do is right.

  49. We're All Human Beings
    Posted August 5, 2010 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    "The idea that your choice is your proverbial skin color is just a cheap shot at not having to answer for the quality of your choices. "

    Excellently said. LGBT extremists haven't changed their playbook in 10 years since "After the Ball".