Kudos to Assemblyman Van Tran for standing against government redefinition of marriage and judicial radicalism:
Van Tran Condemns Judicial Attack On Traditional Values and California Voters
Judge Walker rules against the voters who approved Proposition 8 by 52 percent of the vote and Central Orange County (CD47) voters who voted for Prop. 8. by an even greater margin of 63% to 37%.
In an unprecedented attack on the voters of California, Chief Judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco Vaughn R. Walker today overturned Proposition 8 in an attempt to retroactively disenfranchise the clear vote of over 7 million voters.
After Judge Walker’s ruling, Assemblyman Tran responded, "Today Judge Walker showed his outright contempt for California's voters. The initiative process was designed to ensure the people of California have an opportunity to bypass the legislature and courts when these institutions fail to represent them. Instead of respecting that clear voice, a judicial activist has undermined the will of voters."
"This is a radical action, attempting to throw out the vote of the people and change the rules after the fact."
"The battle for the merits of Proposition 8 is over," continued Tran. "We had an open, fair election of Proposition 8 and it was passed by California's voters in a historic election. The judiciary must learn to respect those results."
Not being satisfied with the results of two separate elections in the past eight years (Proposition 22 in 2000 and Proposition 8 in 2008,) Judge Walker ruled against the voters who approved Proposition 8 by 52 percent of the vote. The 47th Congressional district voted to protect traditional marriage by an even greater margin of 63% to 37%. The case will now head to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Proposition 8 was a simple measure adding 14 words to the California Constitution, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It was placed on the ballot after submitting 1.12 million signatures, nearly double the 694,354 required. Proposition 8 then passed with 52.3% of the vote, in an election with the largest turnout statewide since 1976.
Comments
heavens, what an appallingly
heavens, what an appallingly silly response. I suppose that so long as 7 million people voted it, the Constiution doesn't matter? Because I don't see any argument here criticizing his judgment on the merit.
RIP: The Will of the People of California
The will of the people of California be damned. Judge Walker just undid thousands of years of president and undermined our U.S. Constitution by finding a civil right to same sex marriage. There is no such right in the Constitution, never has been and never will be, except for the elite few who decide to legislate from the bench.
There is no Constitutional civil right for a sexual behavior. There is no civil right to define marriage as one wishes. This is another example of tolerance leading to social suicide. This is nothing more than a radical political agenda that leads to social dissonance.
Good for you Assemblyman Van Tran.
On the same day that Proposition 8 was passed in California, Amendment 2 was enacted in Florida. Amendment 2 in Florida goes even further than California's Proposition 8. Not only was a ban on same-sex marriage enshrined in the Florida Constitution, but Florida's Amendment 2 also banned any civil unions or any substantial equivalent of marriage for same-sex couples.
The people have spoken, Judge Walker needs to step aside.
A conservative ruling
Contrary to Van Tram's statement, this is not radical at all. Judicially it's a conservative ruling, asserting that the US Constitution is the bedrock of the law, and must be honored ahead of a state ballot proposition.
You can tell it's conservative by imagining other cases. Suppose they got a gun ban written into the California constitution through ballot proposition. (That's totally plausible; if a shooting like VA Tech happens here at the right time, something like that could easily pass.) A conservative judicial decision would, just like this one, hew to the US Constitution, not some state or local vote.
Which seems fine by me. I don't see why government has any business regulating people's private lives.
Post new comment