Marriage and Democracy – Victims of Judge’s Decision in California Case

August 5, 2010
For Immediate Release

Marriage and Democracy
Both Victims of Federal Judge’s Decision in California Case

Harrisburg, Pa. In a stunning act of judicial activism at its worst, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down as unconstitutional California’s Proposition 8 – the voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of husband and wife.

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said: “There are really two victims of this decision: One man-one woman marriage and the right of free people to make choices through the ballot box.”

“It is disturbing that the trial court has literally accused the majority of California voters of being ‘irrational’ and having discriminatory intent,” said Geer. “This is especially appalling when the issue at hand is the longstanding definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife, as understood by generations of people around the world.”

Walker’s decision shockingly singled out and dismissed as illegitimate any “moral and religious views [that] form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”

This decision could have dire consequences beyond California. Americans in 30 states — like California — have moved to preserve the historic definition of marriage by amending their state constitutions. 41 states, including Pennsylvania in 1996, have passed “Defense of Marriage Acts” to define marriage in their laws. But DOMAs are not enough to keep activist judges from striking them down, as they did most recently in Iowa.

So far, Pennsylvanians have been denied a referendum vote on a constitutional amendment by the inaction of state lawmakers, leaving our marriage law at risk of a radical judge in the mold of Judge Walker.

The Pennsylvania Family Institute supports the immediate appeal of the decision and ultimately looks forward to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognizes the constitutional right of the people of California – or any state – to affirm the historic public policy of preserving marriage.

Pennsylvania Family Institute is a non-profit research and education organization that focuses on cultural trends and public policies that impact families.  Founded in 1989, its mission is to strengthen families by restoring to public life the traditional, foundational principles essential for the well-being

###

A Supreme Blunder

In a split 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law could legally remove official recognition to a Christian organization called the Christian Legal Society because of its prohibition of gays in the group.  The majority opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that Hastings’ anti-discrimination code did not, as the group alleged, violate the Christian Legal Society’s First Amendment rights.

However, according to the Los Angeles Times, Ginsburg and the Court majority ignored “the broader challenges raised by the Christian group to the university’s anti-discrimination policy.”  The CLS originally sued the university because it believed it was being denied recognition due to its “core religious viewpoints.”  Ginsburg and the court majority, however, did not even address whether the CLS was being discriminated against in direct violation of Hastings’ anti-discrimination code, rather choosing to decide whether or not the code was constitutional.  By limiting the scope of the case, the majority opinion effectively ensured that the core issues at stake would not be heard.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a minority dissent, called this ruling a “serious setback for freedom of expression in this country.”  He argued that the decision creates a principle of “no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning.”  I believe he hit the nail on the head.  One can only imagine how the court would have ruled if a pro-gay group had sued a school for not allowing it to prohibit Christians from joining.

In the broader scheme of things, this decision is just one more in a line of activist rulings made by the Supreme Court in recent years.  The Founding Fathers clearly intended the Supreme Court to use the Constitution as their guide.  The Justices today instead rely on their own thoughts and beliefs.  It is a shame that the personal opinions of nine (or in this case, five) Justices can shape the judicial system in America.  On Monday the victim was the Christian Legal Society.  The real question is: who (or what) will be next?

Sources:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irL_-2G2z2zwGWMrKD-ebazXUNtgD9GKDVOG0

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-christians-20100629,0,7521865.story