If ample evidence ever existed previously concerning judges who refuse to follow the Constitution, it is very apparent that such evidence now exists in the ruling made by federal judge Vaughn Walker, an openly practicing queer. If that seems too strong to call him a queer, just remember it is impossible to make slime look appealing. He admits he is queer so the word is appropriate for him.

Now we’ll cut through the fog and look at the ruling from a strictly constitutional perspective, and how the states relate to the Constitution and why the ruling is so much judicial liberal hogwash and garbage. The first fact is apparent: the United States Constitution does not address marriage in any manner shape nor form. The Constitution is about controlling government, not people. The second fact is that the federal government has no historical involvement in marriage. Marriage wasn’t even a state regulated function in the early years of the formation of the republic. (Only later did the states for various reasons begin to pass laws affecting marriage by determining who was permitted to marry.)  

The judge wrote about rights and made a ruling that totally obliterates the rights of the people to pass laws they desire for their governance. The state Constitution of California provides for referendum or initiative by the people to make laws as they wish under the provisions their Constitution. It is called state sovereignty and whether one agrees with it or not that is their right to do so as guaranteed by the 9^th and 10^th Amendments of the United States Constitution to each individual state. In addition Article IV, Section 4, says: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government … meaning that each state is sovereign and is free to conduct its affairs as the people see fit under their respective and individual constitutions. Plainly, the law in California did not violate any provisions of the United States Constitution or the California Constitution.

Proponents of queer “marriage” cite the 14^th Amendment for support for their beliefs. The 14^th Amendment was written to guarantee that slaves would enjoy all the rights and benefits of citizenship and the laws as do all others, which included marriage (heterosexual) with all the other rights and privileges guaranteed to others. Permission and denial were to be applied equally across the spectrum of society. In other words, when a state passes a law about marriage, and in this matter, it is queer marriage; the conclusion is that they have a right to do so since the law applies equally to all.

Other people cite Article VI, clauses 2 and 3 to support federal intervention, claiming that the laws Congress passes and the rulings of judges are the law of the land due to the supremacy clause of the Constitution. These people conveniently leave out the two words, pursuant to, when they espouse their doctrines. (Refer to http://www.bibleandconstitution.com/Liberal_Wrong_Again.htm) While Judge Walker didn’t cite the supremacy clause as such, his ruling involves it since he involved the United States Constitution in his ruling though the 14^th Amendment. He has made a false ruling and in effect at the same time has made himself supreme as well; that is one of the reasons he needs to be removed from the bench.

Our republic is in dire danger from judges like Walker and others who push their own agendas under color of their position and the law. In Sorting It Out, such people need to be removed from public service for the good of the republic.

© 08-6-2010 DEC