The ridiculous personal bias shown in Judge Walker’s decision to invalidate the vote of millions of Californians because of his own sexual orientation is becoming clearer as we watch how appellate courts are treating his monkey-court decision. First, the liberal watchdog group the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) complained about his order for conservative pro-marriage groups to release their personal memos and donor roles to him, which Judge Walker presumably wanted to embarrass the groups and intimidate their donors and contacts. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Judge Walker’s order, along with his desire to have the entire trial televised. (His threat to televise the proceedings was scaring off the defense’s expert witnesses who didn’t feel like having their houses burned down by angry mobs of San Franciscans. )
Then, despite Judge Walker giving the 9th Circuit Court only 6 days to intervene before he allowed gay marriages to be legally performed, the most liberal court in the country, the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco stepped in to curtail Judge Walker. They have indefinitely blocked his order to legalize gay marriages and will review his decision this December.
Ironically, the strongest legal argument that anti-marriage supporters have to uphold Judge Walker’s decision to neuter marriage is that the defense does not have a constitutional right to defend it. Yes…you read that right. Federal Judge Walker just got out his crayon to X out part of the California constitution and a decision of that state’s supreme court (despite the fact that another federal judge ruled earlier this year that the federal government does not have the right to define marriage for states), and now the court is arguing that the California constitution does not allow its citizens to defend their own vote in court.
So, let’s review:
Federal Judge Tauro: The Federal government cannot define marriage if it does not include gay marriage. States must make that decision on their own.
Federal Judge Walker: The California voters cannot define marriage if it does not include gay marriages. The Federal government has to step in and define it for them.
Federal 9th Circuit: The California voters cannot defend their own vote in court when it does not allow gay marriage, despite the fact that their is ample judicial precedent of it.
Do you see a pattern here? Activist judges are actually contradicting themselves to legalize gay marriage. They could care less about constitutionality (state or federal), judicial precedent or rule of law. Whatever they can say to legalize marriage is what they’ll say.
Can we just skip the 9th Circus and go straight to the Supreme Court?