The ungodly union of law and activism at the Calif. Supreme Court

Home  »  Law  »  The ungodly union of law and activism at the Calif. Supreme Court
May 28, 2008 1 Comment ›› Ben DuPré

The ungodly union of law and activism at the Calif. Supreme Court

When is a judge not a judge?  When he acts like a legislator and invents law from the bench, applying “law” he feels instead of the law he finds. 

Though leftists and homosexual activists are hailing them as courageous trendsetters, Judge Moore writes in his column this week (Passions, politics and prejudices on California high court (http://www NULL.worldnetdaily NULL.php?fa=PAGE NULL.view&pageId=65452)) that the 4 California Supreme Court (http://www NULL.courtinfo justices who 2 weeks ago overturned a 2000 California law defining marriage as between a man and a woman are little more than cowardly judicial activists.

In the preamble to their state Constitution of 1849 (http://www NULL.leginfo NULL.const/ NULL.preamble), the people of California acknowledged that they were “grateful to Almighty God for [their] freedom.” But with the recent decision of the California Supreme Court legalizing same-sex “marriage” in that state, activist judges have destroyed the definition of marriage in California, a freedom that neither the law of God nor the law of man ever gave to that court.

In 2000, the people of California approved Proposition 22 (http://primary2000 NULL.sos NULL.htm), the California Defense of Marriage Act (http://www NULL.leginfo, which clearly defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.  Over the past few years, however, the legislature created and expanded a domestic partnership scheme for same-sex couples that offered all the rights and responsibilities of married spouses—legal “marriages” by another name. 

Two weeks ago, the California Supreme Court (4-3), inventing constitutional provisions not found in their state’s constitution, held (http://www NULL.courtinfo NULL.PDF) that to deny same-sex couples the right to call their unions “marriages” was unconstitutional.  Chief Justice Ronald M. George (http://www NULL.courtinfo NULL.htm) claims (http://www NULL.latimes,0,4272300 NULL.story) it was a “tough” decision, but that “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”  Obviously impressed with his own judicial stubbornness, he continued, “”If you worry, always looking over your shoulders, then maybe it’s time to hang up your robe.” 

Judge Moore takes C.J. George and the other justices to task for ignoring the expressed will of the people as enacted through Proposition 22, and instead favoring the loud minority of (fellow) activists who favor tearing asunder the traditional definition of marriage.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story warned (http://press-pubs NULL.uchicago NULL.html) years ago about the danger of activist judges:

[T]he danger is not that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defense of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day. 

C.J. George prides himself on doing what he says was the “right thing” in this case.  But the “right thing” here would have been to look not over his shoulder nor at the immoral politics and passions of San Francisco, but at the the law in the California code books.

Pro-family groups (http://www NULL.protectmarriage are now hoping for a stay of the court’s decision until November, when the people will have a chance to vote on a marriage amendment (http://www NULL.protectmarriage NULL.php) to the state constitution (rather than merely the state statutes) and overturn the audacious activism of their own Supreme Court.  Given that California “marriages” may soon be granted to out-of-state same-sex couples who will then return to their home state seeking recognition for their California “marriage,” this is a situation for all Americans to watch closely.

Share (http://www NULL.addtoany


  1. Patrick Hagger (http://oaktreeidea says:

    The larger problem is the acceptance of the sexual behavior of the gay community as not even being considered sex by liberal churches. Straight from the ACLU and President Clinton that behavior such as oral sex, anal sex and masturrbation is not real sex because it is not for the purpose of approciation. In my book that makes it deviancy and as an abstainer I am offended. I am drug-free, deviant-free, disease-free african american two-time juror, and a founding member of united we stand america, the reform party.
    The people of California will give a response that will be heard around this country. The battle will not be over, in Texas the Human Rights Commission is no more than a rubber stamp for the ACLU, NAACP,LULAC and other domestic terrorist organizations. We all most do our part to save this country before it is to late for America to repent.

Leave a Reply

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word