TYRANNICAL ACTIVIST JUDGES LEAD THE CHARGE
The recent decision made by an openly and activist homosexual federal judge, Vaughn Walker, in California overturning the State Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the exclusive preview of one man and one woman is extremely significant. I heard Family Research Council President Tony Perkins comment on this case and ruling yesterday on American Family Radio’s Today’s Issues program. Here is an excerpt of his poignant critique, which cautioned
“This is an opinion of a federal court that, if it is allowed to stand, is binding as law on
“This is a deadly attack on
Mr. Perkins is correct. The 9th circus court of appeals has stayed same-sex marriage until it takes up the case in November. It wouldn’t be at all surprising to me that when the court meets it will rule on the side of Judge Walker and homosexual and lesbian advocates for same-sex ‘marriage.’ By the way, marriage in any context outside of one-man, one-woman marriage is oxymoronic, not to mention it is immoral and unlawful in God’s eyes and any civilized society.
Once the appellate court concurs with Judge Walker’s decision, it will be further upheld by the Kennedy factor tipping the decision in favor a verdict as disturbing and destructive as Roe v. Wade. It will serve as the death knell for
Of course, if you were REALLY against "judicial activism," you would be against the current Roberts Court -- which has been the most activist court in 50 years, even going out of its way to overturn earlier rulings, and showing little if any sense of adhering to judicial precedent.
ReplyDeleteSo I suspect that's because you're not REALLY concerned about "judicial activism" at all. I'm guessing that what upsets you are judges who -- in honestly seeking to figure out what is just and true (just as presumably you do, only with a vaster knowledge of legal principle and precedent) -- happen to have different opinions than you.
In other words, it's not about "judicial activism" at all. It's merely about people daring to have different opinions, different ways of seeing the world, than you, than Greg.
That's it, plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.
Unless, of course, you also condemn the current Supreme Court for its pretty extreme judicial activism.
I personally find it dishonest and un-Christian to pretend that there are principles at stake, when really all that is at stake is the fact that not everybody thinks exactly like Greg.