Judges 'stealth plan' promotes same-sex marriage Posted: July 21, 2009 9:54 pm Eastern
By Alyssa Farah Â© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A legal analysis has found that judges in many states have engaged in a stealth plan in their "alarming propensity" to bestow privileges on homosexuals, and a public policy organization in West Virginia is now lobbying the state legislature to let the people vote on such "rights."
In one recent West Virginia judicial ruling, according to the analysis by Liberty Counsel, "the court created new rights [for homosexuals] where none had been recognized by the legislature, thereby usurping the authority of the duly elected legislature."
In a second case, the court dissed a traditional foster family in favor of a "same-sex couple," the analysis said.
According to opponents of such activism, various court task forces have been assembled in more than 40 states already, as well as Washington and Puerto Rico, to address and make recommendations about so-called "discrimination" over "gender" issues.
The task forces describe their goals as the elimination of discriminatory rulings, but opponents say the efforts actually have been used to promote homosexuality.
In West Virginia, a family group is urging the state legislature to put the issue before voters, and Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, said, "I hope the West Virginia legislature will do what is necessary to protect legitimate marriage and the traditional family in the Mountain State.
"As we've seen in states like Massachusetts and California, all it takes is a handful of motivated activist judges to severely damage the institution of marriage. Every single state in America needs to permanently and constitutionally reaffirm natural marriage. Not least, the great state of West Virginia," he said.
It is the West Virginia Family Foundation that has been urging the legislature to put the plan before voters in the form of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Just last week, the lawmakers held a public hearing on plans for that vote. The Family Foundation blames the judges' activism in part on a quietly adopted code of ethics for the judiciary â€“ including all employees â€“ that mandates language promoting "equality," specifically listing those with alternative sexual lifestyle choices.
"This is by design," said Barber. "These liberal judicial activists understand that in order to force their radical pro-homosexual agenda on the rest of society, they must do so under cover of darkness. The vast majority of West Virginians respect traditional sexual morality. This court seeks to force them to affirm new-age sexual deviancy under penalty of law."
Family Foundation spokesman Kevin McCoy said most members of the state legislator have no idea that the Committee on Equality in the West Virginia Judiciary exists, much less that it bans the use of words such as foreman and mailman in favor of "foreperson" and "postal worker" and further encourages judges to demand an apology from anyone caught using such language.
The legislature already has approved a plan that set up a subcommittee to determine if there is a need for a constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot in November 2010, and that group has yet to make its recommendation.
McCoy's organization, an affiliate of the American Family Association, provided numerous documents to the committee that provides "clear and convincing evidence the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has adopted the homosexual agenda," it said.
The judicial code says judges not only have to rule on legal questions and make determinations of guilty, innocent, liability or lack thereof in cases, they must monitor the actual behavior of those in the courtroom.
"Tell those appearing in your courtroom the type of behavior you expect," a brochure teaching the judges how to comply says. "Immediately intervene when someone crosses the line. Failure to do so will send a message that bias is 'O.K.' in the courthouse. If a person's behavior is repeatedly or clearly offensive, sternly admonish the person, demand an apology, and warn what will happen if there is a recurrence."
The brochure also tells judges there is no appropriate way to refer to the "chairman" of the jury. It is the "chair" or "chairperson." Likewise, one cannot refer to a "male nurse" or "man and wife." Even "husband/wife" must be banned in favor of "spouse."
Liberty Counsel's analysis brought up the problems that the so-called nondiscrimination code has produced.
"The booklet defines 'bias' broadly as 'stereotyped thinking that leads to improper disparate treatment in the courtroom' and 'devalues' a person 'due to prejudice.' This vague definition could easily be applied against all those who uphold traditional religious teachings to the effect that homosexual conduct is sinful, including Jews, Muslims, and Christians," the analysis said.
"These rulings and actions suggest that the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, like courts in California, Massachusetts, and elsewhere, could undertake to redefine marriage judicially. Indeed, the preferred method of those seeking to undermine traditional marriage has been to bring their arguments to the judicial branch rather than the legislature," the analysis said.
Liberty Counsel said that's how marriage redefinitions have been imposed in several other states. It suggested a constitutional amendment is the one reliable way of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
"The code of judicial conduct signals the leanings of the judges in favor of homosexual activists. I would also add that West Virginia is not alone with respect to such additions; in fact, it would be a distinct minority of states that do not contain such a provision today. A quick search on the web reveals that the ABA Model Code contains the restriction, and that even states such as Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Mississippi include it," said Stephen Crampton, vice president of legal affairs at Liberty Counsel.
McCoy said the courts in his state more and more are ruling in support of demands from homosexuals, such as a recent case where an 18-month-old girl was given in adoption to two lesbians instead of a married man and woman who sought to adopt.
"This court has arrogantly trampled on the very state and federal constitutions it's sworn to uphold. These black robed autocrats have unilaterally and arbitrarily determined that people who choose to engage in a destructive, deviant and changeable sexual lifestyle are worthy of heightened government recognition and special suspect minority status based simply on the choice to engage in that lifestyle," Barber told WND.
"Conversely, the court has arrogantly determined that traditional sexual values and the 'traditional family' somehow represent 'bias' and 'prejudice.' As a result, Christians and other people who hold traditional values are officially treated by the West Virginia judiciary as 'bigot'â€™ â€“ as modern-day 'racists,'" Barber added.