DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

California Proposition 8 Declared Unconstitutional is Unconstitutional

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Proposition 8 in California was approved by voters in November of 2008. The new amendment to the California State Constitution dictates, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” A pair of gay couples sued, stating that the state constitutional amendment "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.

U.S. Code Title 42, Section 1983 is legislation put into place in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, a lower court federal judge, made his ruling on the case today, and came to the conclusion that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, claiming it violates the civil rights of those that exhibit gay behavior.

There are a number of issues regarding this issue and the U.S. Constitution. Not only is marriage a state issue, which means this case has no business in the federal courts, but also the decision by Judge Walker creates a contradiction in the court system.

A few weeks ago U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, indicating that the law "interferes with the right of a state to define marriage."

So which is it? The Left uses Case Law to define the Constitution, rather than the text of the founding document, and they use precedent law as their guiding light. Yet, the precedent law in place by Judge Tauro doesn't matter to Judge Walker. And how lawless does it make our system if two judges can disagree on whether definition of marriage is a state issue, and the Democrats agree with both?

On top of that, the courts claim they are enforcing the 14th Amendment. The amendment was designed to ensure that the emancipated slaves received the same rights and privileges as whites. The intent of the amendment is race, not behavior. If it is applied to behavior, such as the sexual behavior of homosexuals, how long before kleptomaniacs use it to justify their behavior, or pedophiles use it to justify their behavior, or polygamists use it to justify their behavior? Where would it stop?

One must also consider that the 14th Amendment ends with the words "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Yet, what we are seeing is the judiciary trying to enforce it.

A conflict of interest also exists in this case. Judge Walker is gay, so of course he is going to rule against Proposition 8.

What we are seeing is judges ruling based on personal opinion, or political agenda, rather than the law of the land. How is that the rule of law?

The losers of this ruling will appeal, and when the case goes to the next level, it will be appealed again by whichever group loses. Ultimately, this case will go to the Supreme Court, and with it, state sovereignty will go on trial. The real question is, will the Supreme Court apply the law, or act lawless as well?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Proposition 8 overturned by federal judge. Next stop: Supreme Court? - The Christian Science Monitor

Prop 8 Ruling - MSNBC

The Gay Judge and the Proposition 8 Lawsuit - Holy Coast

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights - Cornell University Law School

Federal Law Banning Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional - Political Pistachio

No comments: