NOM BLOG

NOM Applauds Higher Court Decision Overruling Prop 8's Rogue Judge

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 2, 2012
Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)


"This is yet another example where the higher courts have had to reign in the rogue judge, Vaughn Walker."— Brian Brown

NOM Logo

Washington, DC—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today applauded the unanimous decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule a lower court decision that would have allowed the public broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial even though former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker promised he would only use the recording for his own use in chambers. The court ordered the recording to be sealed and prohibited the lower courts from returning a copy to Walker.

"This is yet another example where the higher courts have had to reign in the rogue judge, Vaughn Walker," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Walker's bias in the Proposition 8 case was so pervasive that it infected his rulings throughout the trial. This is at least the third time that higher courts have had to overrule him on critical decisions. We applaud the Ninth Circuit for doing so."

In violation of court rules, Judge Walker ordered the Proposition 8 trial to be recorded for world-wide broadcast over the objections of the proponents of the initiative, who told the court many of their witnesses would refuse to testify. On the morning of trial, the US Supreme Court stepped in to block the broadcast of the trial. His broadcast plans dashed, Walker continued recording the trial but pledged that the recording would only be used by him in chambers to help prepare his decision. However, after he issued his decision and announced his retirement, Walker began using the recording as a prop in speaking engagements, and those challenging the initiative demanded that the recording be publicly released for broadcast. Walker also announced that he has been in a ten-year same-sex relationship.

"You know a federal judge like Vaughn Walker is way out of line when even the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal court in the country, is forced to step in to prevent a miscarriage of justice," said Brown. "The only time those who are challenging Prop 8 have won a decision is when it was before the rogue judge Walker. Once higher authorities have examined the facts, they have reversed Walker time and again. We are confident that we will eventually win on the merits of Prop 8 as well and that it will be upheld as a validly enacted and appropriate constitutional amendment."

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Anath Hartmann,ahartmann@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

###

12 Comments

  1. Arthur
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    He's a rogue! A ROGUE I TELL YOU!!!

  2. James
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    So if there's truly an interest for heterosexuals in preventing gay marriage, wouldn't a straight judge have to recuse himself/herself as well?

    Either way, if the primary purpose of marriage is to create a suitable environment for children, I think you'd agree that no marriage license should be granted to couples (heterosexual or otherwise) who would make obviously poor parents: this would include anyone where one spouse has had a murder, rape or pedophilia conviction with the last 10-20 years or so, anyone with a domestic abuse conviction within the last 5 years and anyone with a drug or alcohol abuse violation in the last year or so. Further, any person with a history of any mental illness that renders them a danger to themselves or others should not be granted a marriage license.

    Sound reasonable? If we should not grant a marriage license to two men or two women based purely on the fact that they're depriving a child of one gender or the other, it makes sense that we should not grant marriage licenses to heterosexual couples who would make unsuitable parents by anyone's standards.

  3. MIke J.
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    I love hyperbole, Brian has a future with the National Enquirer when this NOM thing falls apart.

  4. Son of Adam
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    The trouble with that reasoning, James, is that the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a right, which BTW is different from having the right to have marriage redefined to suit the sexual practices of a special interest group.

  5. James
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    So Son of Adam, do you agree with SCOTUS in that a civil marriage license is a "right" for a man convicted of raping his own daughter and a woman strung out on crystal meth?

    Do you know how many heterosexual couples are granted marriage licenses every year that would make abusive or negligent parents?

    If marriage is truly "about the children", why not push for legislation to require some form of proof that one isn't a raging sociopath when granting a marriage license to a heterosexual couple? Nah ... too inconvenient. Better to just keep two guys from marrying, right?

  6. James
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    So Son of Adam, do you agree with SCOTUS in that a civil marriage license is a "right" for a man convicted of raping his own daughter and a woman strung out on crystal meth?

    Do you know how many heterosexual couples are granted marriage licenses every year that would make abusive nor negligent parents?

    If marriage is truly "about the children", why not push for legislation to require some form of proof that one isn't a raging sociopath when granting a marriage license to a heterosexual couple? Nah ... too inconvenient. Better to just keep two guys from marrying, right?

  7. John Noe
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    Based on what James said if homosexuals really cared about children they would marry someone of the opposite sex so that their children could have a mother and a father.
    It is not because they cannot but because they will not because their selfish sexual desires supercedes any real interests in children.

  8. QueerNE
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    Hiding those tapes seems a bit cowardly to me.

  9. Son of Adam
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 4:11 am | Permalink

    Family structure is the most important factor in a child’s development, James. Having a mom and a dad is the best structure. Conversely, according to the American College of Pediatricians, the research shows that homosexual couples provide a far less safe and stable environment for children. They note that violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples, and homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages, with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexuals are also more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. They conclude, “Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.”

    Thus, redefining marriage only expands the abuse and exploitation of children.

  10. Posted February 3, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    If marriage is truly "about the children", why not push for legislation to require some form of proof that one isn't a raging sociopath when granting a marriage license to a heterosexual couple? Nah ... too inconvenient. Better to just keep two guys from marrying, right?

    I know what the purpose of same-sex "marriage" is.

    In 2003, the Massachusetts Senate had certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking if a proposed civil unions bill that EXPLICITLY provides that “eligible same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the benefits, p......rotections, rights and responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples by the marriage laws of the commonwealth, without entering into a marriage” and that “spouses in a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”. Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440 Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004)

    Several gay rights groups submitted amici briefs arguing that the civil unions bill would violate the Massachusetts ERA, on the basis that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and a form of “segregation”, GLAD Brief, Opinions, at 12, because they denied the “social recognition” that comes with marriage, Id. at 24,they would “mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their heterosexual counterparts and diminish their status in the community”regardless of whether they provided “the same benefits, protections,rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”, Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12 , and that civil unions “would not constitute equality, because their relationships still would not be recognized by the rest of society as being as valued as heterosexual relationships.” id. at 13

    And in Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 388, 110 P3d 91 (Or. Sup. Ct. 2005) plaintiffs had argued that civil unions would be “inherently stigmatizing" and "inherently separate and unequal” Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Li, at 10.

    And in Jackson v. Abercrombie , the plaintiffs are suing because of the "special status" of marriage, not just
    the "bundle of rights" which the civil union law would allow them. See Complaint in Jackson v. Abercrombie, CV11-009734-ACK-KSC, at 13, quoting Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 315 at 289, 957 A.2d 407 at 416 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008)

    The underlying fallacies of these arguments are the assumptions that the social recognition and social value, and social status of marriage is independent of the male-female dynamic, and that heterosexual relationships are valued BECAUSE they are called marriages. If this be so, it is not because of anything in the proposed civil unions acts, but the solely due to the construction sodomist fundamentalists choose to put upon it.

    In other words, the purpose of same-sex “marriage” is to make sodomist fundamentalists feel better about themselves.

  11. Rick DeLano
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 2:57 am | Permalink

    Slow train comin.'

    Put your ears to the rails.

    Overturn...overturn...overturn.....

    Stck a fork in it.

    This one's done.

    I'm actually beginning to wonder if even the Communist Ninth Circuit is quite crazy enough to sign off on what is shaping up to go down in history as the single most disgraceful perversion of the judicial system in American history.......

  12. Posted February 4, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    I'm actually beginning to wonder if even the Communist Ninth Circuit is quite crazy enough to sign off on what is shaping up to go down in history as the single most disgraceful perversion of the judicial system in American history.......

    To put it in perspective, there are only three other court decisions in U.S. history that held that the traditional definition of marriage violates the due process or equal protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. None of them had concealed material facts related to their qualification to hear the case, nor released a record that they promised would be sealed, nor ordered an injunctive remedy that exceeded what plaintiffs had standing to seek, nor were subject to an extraordinary writ of mandamus concerning discovery, not tried to have proceedings broadcast in violation of statute and court rules.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.