Charlie Butts, Fred Jackson, and Chris Woodward - OneNewsNow On Wednesday, a judge struck down California's same-sex "marriage" ban as a violation of the civil rights of homosexuals, but a pending appeal of the landmark ruling could prevent same-gender weddings from resuming in the state any time soon.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8 Wednesday, declaring that limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves no legitimate purpose and is an "artifact" rooted in "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices."
While the ruling affects only California, the appeal will go to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over nine Western states. Walker said he would consider waiting for the Ninth Circuit to render its decision before he makes his opinion final and requires the state to stop enforcing the ban. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue.
Judge should have recused himself On two separate occasions, voters in The Golden State declared traditional marriage as the law of the state -- once as a state statute and then as a constitutional amendment. Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, calls Walker's decision a tyrannical, abusive, and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance -- and argues that members of Congress should immediately launch impeachment proceedings against Walker.
"[It's an] absolutely outrageous and unconscionable ruling by this federal judge to so cavalierly overturn the expressed will of seven-million voters in the state of California," Fischer offers. "[He] didn't even have the legal right to consider this case. Marriage policy is not established in the federal constitution. Under the Tenth Amendment that issue is reserved for the states. So this judge trampled the Constitution [and] trampled the will of the voters in California."
In a press release yesterday, AFA identifies Walker as a "practicing homosexual" who, for that reason, should have recused himself from this case "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Fischer concurs.
"It's really no different in our judgment than having a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to issue a ruling on an anti-pornography statute," says the AFA spokesman. "There's a conflict of interest there."