Will liberal judge overturn Californians' ban on homosexual "marriage"?

Why is it unsurprising that yet another legislating-from-the-bench federal judge presiding in San Francisco will probably issue yet another unconstitutional opinion overturning the will of the voters of California outlawing homosexual "marriage"?  

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker has been hearing a case for the past several weeks, without a jury, brought to him by some homosexuals in San Francisco, who are seeking to overturn the constitutional ban on homosexual "marriages," approved by the voters in California in 2008.  Thus far, not one state in the nation, which has allowed its citizens to vote on the matter of homosexual "marriage", has approved such an abomination.   

Out of the 31 states which have given its citizens an opportunity to vote on this matter, the voters in each one of these 31 states (including California by a margin of 52% to 48%) have banned homosexual "marriages".  If the remaining 19 state legislatures  --  most of whom are out of tune with their voters  --  allowed their citizens to vote on banning homosexual "marriages," undoubtedly each one of these states would follow the lead of the previous 31 and make homosexual "marriages" illegal in all 50 states.   

Judge Walker is expected to issue his ruling in March and if he rules against traditional marriage, between one man and one woman, it is expected that the United States Supreme Court will overturn his wretched decision.  Lawyers defending the citizens of California who banned homosexual "marriage" argued during the trial that "limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves a paramount social function that outweighs civil rights concerns."   

"The Washington Times" in an article today quoted Andy Pugno, an attorney representing Proposition 8   --  which outlawed homosexual "marriages" in California  --  backers who credited the homosexual plaintiffs with "putting on a spectacular show," but he insisted that much of their testimony was irrelevant to proving California voters acted irrationally in approving Proposition 8.   

Mr. Pugno said, "To invalidate people's vote, the plaintiffs have a really tough job.  They have to prove the people voted irrationally when they voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.  ...  The question is whether the people have a right to decide what is best." 

Syndicate content