DOMA, Federal Judges, and the Gay Agenda

DOMA, Federal Judges, and the Gay Agenda

In this essay, facts of the cases, verbatim statements, judge's comments, orders, etc. are written in black. Insights and comments by this writer are in blue. Words of wisdom from America’s Founding Fathers and others will appear in red.

Marriage Defined:

… he which made them at the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, FOR THIS CAUSE SHALL A MAN LEAVE FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE: AND THEY TWAIN SHALL BE ONE FLESH…. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Jesus, The Bible, Matthew 19:4-6.

A simplified breakdown of the definition of marriage for judges and others who pretend to alter this unalterable definition:

…he, which made them –their Creator, the only giver of inalienable rights,

at the beginning – history of marriage - ever since the human racebegan,

MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, - two distinctly different genders.

and said, FOR THIS CAUSE – because they are different genders,

SHALL A MAN – not a woman

LEAVE – to seek a wife because she is of different gender,

FATHER AND MOTHER, - his biological parents,

AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE: - because she is of different gender,(his wife, not her wife, there is no such thing as a male wife or a female husband.)

AND THEY TWAIN – they two (different gender), not one (same gender),

SHALL BE ONE FLESH – become as one, in opposite-gender marriage.

What therefore God hath joined together, -God, not “the state,” is matchmaker.

let not man put asunder. – Don’t mess with marriage, according to “the laws of nature and nature’s God.”

This clear and concise definition of marriage is two thousand years old, and has been the only legitimate definition of marriage since the human race began. It is a necessary component of Western civilization. It has been recognized as the only definition of marriage in America for the four centuries since the first European settlement of the North American continent. Marriage, correctly defined, and its resulting family, is the most basic unit of government, after individual self-discipline. It is essential to the continued existence of our free, self-governing Republic.

Jesus’ definition of marriage birthed America’s “hero generation.” When our federal judges declared war on Christianity, the “radical generation” was born to take control of our institutions, including our government.

Jesus’ definition was the only definition of marriage in America before federal judges lost their way in their judge-made legal jungle. In just one court case among many, California Proposition 8, it took 228 pages to record the legalese wrangling and psycho/sociological nonsense in federal court to un-define marriage. Jesus took only 48 words to define it eternally:

Since mid twentieth century, however, when the U. S. Supreme Court declared war on the Faith of our Fathers, it has supposedly been unconstitutional to repeat in public any words of wisdom uttered by Jesus Christ. Those who wish to reject Jesus Christ may do so, of course, and take their chances on judgment day. However, if we wish to remain free, we at least must keep common sense in our common law. Sufficient for this end would be as easy as conscientiously ruling by the motto of our U. S. Department of Justice:

THE COMMON LAW IS THE WILL OF MANKIND ISSUING FROM THE LIFE OF THE PEOPLE.

But as you will see in a later paragraph Obama’s “Czar” presently in charge of this department does not think this way.

The life of the American people, concerning marriage, is abundantly clear, even to renegade lawyers and judges. But in the revisionist world of social and political correctness, common sense (and the Constitution) is frequently left outside the courthouse door. Incredibly these sophomores prefer to reshape the Constitution to accommodate a small but loud-mouthed minority.

So what is DOMA, The Defense of Marriage Act, and what is it all about?

Background:

1993The Hawaii State Supreme Court opined that the state’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples is discriminatory.

1996 Aware that the Hawaii Court decision signaled a new threat in the decades-long assault on traditional opposite-sex marriage, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It was understood that legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Hawaii would have a devastating effect upon the laws of other states, federal laws, the institution of marriage, traditional morality, and state sovereignty. To head off such far-reaching destruction of the American way of life, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

Section 1 of DOMA defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Section 2 states that, should a state legalize same-sex “marriage,” no other state or entity of the federal government will be required to honor such a state law:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Congress, the elected representatives of the American people, passed the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly. The vote in the House was 342-67, in the Senate 85-14.

1998 Hawaii voters approved an amendment to the Hawaii State Constitution by which the State Legislature enacted a law banning same-sex marriage. Seeing the far-reaching destructive nature of same-sex “marriage,” other states soon followed Hawaii’s example. Wikipedia on the Internet supplies the following list of states banning same-sex marriage and the percentage of supporting votes:

By amendment of state constitutions -

1998Hawaii 69%; Alaska 68%

2000 Nevada 69%; Nebraska 70%;

2004Mississippi 86%; Missouri 72%; Montana 67%; Oregon 57%;

Arkansas 75%; Georgia 76%; Kentucky 75%; Louisiana 78%; North

Dakota 73%; Ohio 62%; Oklahoma 76%; Utah 66%; Michigan 59%

2005Kansas 70%; Texas 76%;

2006Colorado 56%; Tennessee 81%; Alabama 81%; Idaho 63%; South

Carolina 78%; South Dakota 52%; Wisconsin 59%; Virginia 57%

2008Arizona 56%; California 52%; Florida 62%

By state statutes –

Delaware – Illinois – Indiana – Maine – Maryland – Minnesota – NorthCarolina – Pennsylvania – Puerto Rico – Washington – West Virginia - Wyoming

Forty-four out of fifty states, with overwhelming majorities, and the Congress of the United States with overwhelming majorities! How can We the People say it any plainer, “Don’t mess with marriage, according to ‘the laws of Nature and Natures God’.” Any yet the gay agenda is being pushedonward, undaunted, unashamed.

2008 Three states have no statutes concerning same-sex “marriage.”

Mew Mexico – New- York – Rhode Island

Five states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex “marriage.”

Massachusetts – Connecticut – Iowa – Vermont – New Hampshire

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8

Introduction: Following is the Federal court case that overturned California’s Proposition 8, an amendment to California’s State Constitution, confirming the long-standing, universally recognized, legal definition of marriage. Here the case is condensed, deleting voluminous and tedious legal proceedings, confirmation of witnesses, background of lawyers, sociologists, psychologists, etc., many references to other court cases, etc., etc.

2009 The Case: August 4, 2009. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California- Judge Vaughn R. Walker Presiding.

On Trial: California Proposition 8 regarding the legal definition of marriage.

Background of the Case: On November 5, 2008, following the lead of the people of 43 other states, over five million (52.5% of California voters) approved California Proposition 8, thereby adding the following fourteen words to the California State Constitution:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Later the California Supreme Court ruled 6 to 1 to uphold Proposition 8.

Note that it took only 9 months after the people enacted Proposition 8 for a federal court to accept a case challenging the Constitutionality of the institution of marriage, as it has been understood and lived in Western civilization for two thousand years.

Plaintiffs: Two Lesbians and two Gay Men who sue to overturn Proposition 8, so that the law must redefine marriage to legalize marriage of same-sex partners.

Note: On April 26, 2011, after his resignation from the bench to return to private law practice, Judge Walker revealed to San Francisco Chronicle reporters that he has been in a homosexual relationship for ten years with a San Francisco doctor.

Can a homosexual judge reach an unbiased decision in a case demanding gay marriage?

Also note that Judge Walker was first nominated by President Ronald Reagan, re-nominated by President George W. Bush, Sr., and unanimously confirmed by the Republican U. S. Senate.

Defendants: The Governor and Attorney General of California; Other California Officials; The City and County of San Francisco.

Order of Proceedings:

Pretrial Proceedings and Trial Evidence

Determine Credibility of Witnesses

Findings of Fact

Conclusions of Law

Judges Order

The Judge must decide:

1. Whether any evidence shows that California has an interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.

Wrong question. On trial is traditional marriage, not civil unions.

2. Whether the evidence shows that Proposition 8 enacted a private moral viewpoint without advancing a legitimate government interest.

Another sleight of hand with the English language. Here “private moral viewpoint” actually means the traditional Christian definition of marriage and family, as becomes evident in trial proceedings.

The Plaintiffs’ Challenge:

Plaintiffs challenge a November 2008 voter-enacted amendment to the California Constitution. In its entirety, Proposition 8 provides:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Early in the record of this case Judge Walker’s conclusion is recorded:

Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.

Thus the judge single handedly overrules the will of the people of California and 43 other states, the California State Supreme Court, and the Defense of Marriage Act enacted by the Congress of the United States. So let’s look further into the case and see what we find:

Plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8 deprives them of due process and of equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that its enforcement by state officials violates 42 USC § 1983.

Another of many judicial perversions of the Civil War Amendments intended only to free the slaves and grant them the rights of citizenship. The Civil War Amendments are in bad need of Constitutional redefinition to prevent judicial social engineers from “swallowing the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment.” African Americans should be deeply offended when the Court distorts their Constitutional Amendment to enforce “rights” which these good people so soundly abhor.

Plaintiffs are two couples. Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier (two lesbians who desire to change their registered same-sex union to marriage status) reside in Berkeley, California and raise four children together. Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami (two gay men who desire to change their same-sex union to marriage status) reside in Burbank, California. Plaintiffs seek to marry their partners, and have been denied marriage licenses by their respective county authorities on the basis of Proposition 8.

August 2009. Doc #160 (minute entry).

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1.

Plaintiffs contend that the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and that Proposition 8 violates this fundamental right because: 1. It prevents each plaintiff from marrying the person of his or her choice;

For the official definition of fundamental rights, please refer to our Declaration of Independence, our nation’s charter and right to existence among the nations of the world. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,….”

This case very clearly illustrates the potential tyranny of ruling by the Constitution alone, disconnected from the Declaration. Reprobate minds can easily distort the English language so as to make the Constitution say the very opposite of its common-sense meaning. One black-robed despot brazenly declared that the Constitution is what the judge says it is.

We Americans have long enjoyed liberties endowed by our Creator - not granted by government. When Pursuit of Happiness becomes taking liberties that have not been bestowed by our Creator, such pursuits is licentiousness, not “unalienable rights.”

Warning: “…. we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is a natural and necessary progression…. that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.” George Washington,“The Father of our Country.”

To understand the source of the term “endowed by their Creator” go to the We Hold These Truths page on this website and download the book free of charge.

This case not only slights the Creator but also blatantly rules against the consent of the governed. It is the Court’s perversion of the Fourteenth Amendment that allows this judicial tyranny, allowing judges to impose their concept of social and political correctness upon the people against their consent.

To understand the principles of American civil government contained in our Declaration of Independence go to the Founding Documents page on this website - also the Two Declarations page.

PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8

Proponents organized the official campaign to pass Proposition 8, known as ProtectMarriage.com —— Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal (“Protect Marriage”). Proponents formed and managed the Protect Marriage campaign and ensured its efforts to pass Proposition 8 complied with California election law. See FF13-17 below. After orchestrating the successful Proposition 8 campaign, proponents intervened in this lawsuit and provided a vigorous defense of the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The ballot argument submitted to the voters summarizes proponents’ arguments in favor of Proposition 8 during the 2008 campaign. The argument states: Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward.

• Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle.
• It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
• While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.
• If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok.
• [W]hile gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. PX00011 California Voter Information Guide, California General Election, Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at PM 003365 (emphasis in original).

These arguments for Proposition 8 are not fears of what might happen. They are abuses of the Constitutional rights of teachers, children, parents, ministers of the gospel and others that have already been happening for some time all across the country. Citizen actions such as Proposition 8 have been made necessary simply because of abuses by tinhorn tyrants carrying out the edicts of federal courts.

A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. See Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558,571 (2003); see also Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 US 1, 15 (1947).

Please pay close attention to this declaration by the judge. It contains in a few concise words the what, the who, the why, and the how the once sure foundation of our Creator-endowed liberties is being dismantled by the fools that rule.

First of all, the judge separates “the state” from the people. For Heaven’s sake, who are “the state?” Is not “the state” simply the people; or is the judge declaring that “the state” is the ruling elite that runs our government? If “the state” is the government, then “the state” is still the people – the government of the people, by the people, for the people. “The state” then must of necessity be the people, governed primarily by themselves at the ballot box, secondarily by their elected representatives, thirdly by their elected President, and lastly (but not finally) by their appointed judges, who are subject to impeachment. America’s Founding Fathers would be appalled: