UNITED STATES: by Bill MuehlenbergNews Weekly
One unelected judge nullifies will of majority
, August 21, 2010
In the old days the enemies of the free and democratic West could resort to violent revolution to overthrow capitalism, democracy and other objects deemed to be deserving of destruction. Social change by the barrel of the gun was a preferred way of radical social upheaval and revolution.
|Judge Vaughn R. Walker|
But Marxists and other revolutionaries also learned that a nation could be just as effectively overthrown when undermined from within. Taking over the institutions of power and influence can just as readily bring about the new social order desired by the radicals.
A number of commentators have remarked on this over the years. Just to take one example, Roger Kimball discussed this theme in his important book, The Long March: How the cultural revolution of the 1960s changed America
(Encounter Books, 2000). I here offer what I wrote about this book:
"In many ways the cultural revolution of the '60s has been as influential and momentous as other great social upheavals, such as the Industrial, French or Russian revolutions. All have left a lasting impact, and we still feel their effects today.
"The counter-culture revolution of the '60s really began with the Beatniks of the late '50s and continued into the mid-'70s. By then the revolution was all but complete.
"A minority of social agitators on the fringes of society had managed to subvert and infiltrate the important institutions of power and influence (the media, academia, politics) in a very short period of time, resulting in a complete reversal of fortune.
"Thus today those concerned about faith and family values have found themselves displaced and marginalised. The counter-culturalists have become mainstream, while those who had previously occupied the middle ground are now the new fringe-dwellers.
"This volume traces the story of how this tremendous upheaval happened and why. It examines in some detail the 'long march through the institutions' which the radicals took. The phrase, attributed to the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, speaks of the need to overthrow societies from within, instead of relying on bloody revolutions from without. The strategy, laments Kimball, had been all too effective.
"Indeed, no one could have foreseen how quickly and easily the institutions did crumble before the radical activists. The moral, cultural and social blitzkrieg has been as thorough as it has been all-consuming. And the success of this revolution, Kimball reminds us, 'can be measured not in toppled governments but in shattered values'.
"Religious values, cultural values, moral values and social values have all been deeply affected, making this one of the most thorough and successful revolutions to date." (From News Weekly
, October 23, 2004).
One of the main ways in which this bloodless revolution has been taking place is by means of judicial activism. Time and time again we are seeing the will of the majority being thwarted by leftist, activist judges who seek to remake society in their own image.
These activists consider the masses to be unenlightened and stupid, in need of the coercive utopianism being pushed by the courts. Thus one act of social revolution after another is being perpetrated by these activist judges, who are usually unelected, unrepresentative, and unaccountable to ordinary citizens.
If there is any key area which is especially being promoted by the judicial activists, it is the homosexual agenda. Since the majority of citizens consistently oppose the militant homosexual agenda, activist judges are bypassing and undermining democratic processes by their social engineering rulings.
This has been happening steadily now for some decades. And the most recent example of this war on democracy was the decision on August 4 by a US federal judge to overturn the state of California's ban on same-sex marriage. This ban came in place in 2008 when California constitutional amendment Proposition 8 was passed by 52 per cent of the vote.
Yet the majority vote of the people of California has just been dumped by another activist judge, Chief US District Judge Vaughn R. Walker for the US District Court of California, who is intent on remaking the moral and social fabric of America. This is also part of the declared war on the institutions of marriage and family which the radicals are bent on destroying as they redefine them out of existence.
Of course, all the usual suspects applauded the decision.
The left-liberal New York Times
, in its editorial, praised Judge Walker's decision in favour of same-sex marriage, declaring that "there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions". (New York Times
, August 4, 2010).
One news account reported on the reaction of various celebrities: "Australian actress Portia De Rossi and her American TV talk show wife Ellen Degeneres - who married before Californians voted for Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage and sparked furious public debate – were among the first to join the celebration. An ecstatic De Rossi tweeted about 'an incredibly exciting and historical day' and a big step in equal rights." (Sydney Morning Herald
, August 5, 2010).
But not everyone was pleased with this further erosion of democracy in America. Karen England, executive director of Californian-based Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), said: "Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view.
"Family values are under constant assault now more than ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000, and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California's constitution.
"We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the seven million Californians who took to the polls in favour of marriage." (ChristianNewsWire.com
, August 4, 2010).
Mr Randy Thomasson, of the pro-family group SaveCalifornia, said, "Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow.
"Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California." (LifeSiteNews.com
, August 4, 2010).
Indeed, it very interesting to note that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who presides over the US District Court for the Northern District of California, and declared Proposition 8 to have no "rational basis", is himself an active homosexual. Why are we not surprised?
This battle will now continue to drag on in the courts. It is simply one more example of how a runaway judiciary is holding the American people to ransom.
Sadly, this war against democracy is not limited to the US. All over the Western world these judicial activists are pulling down democratic freedoms as they unleash their activist agendas on hapless populations.
The war against freedom and family has just ratcheted up another notch. It is time for all concerned citizens to mount a counter-offensive.Bill Muehlenberg is a commentator on contemporary issues, and lectures on ethics and philosophy. His website CultureWatch is at: www.billmuehlenberg.com
Bill Muehlenberg, "The house the Left built", News Weekly
, October 23, 2004.
Judge Vaughn R. Walker's decision in the federal lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger
. US District Court for the Northern District of California, August 4, 2010.
"Chief Judge of Federal District Court in San Francisco Vaughn R. Walker overturns Proposition 8", Christian Newswire
(Washington, DC), August 4, 2010.
"Marriage is a constitutional right", editorial, New York Times
, August 4, 2010.
"Federal judge rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional", LifeSiteNews.com
(Front Royal, Virginia), August 4, 2010.
"US judge overturns gay marriage ban", Sydney Morning Herald
, August 5, 2010.
Extracts from Judge Walker's decision to overturn California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage
• "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents." (p.93).
• "A belief ... that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women ... is not a proper basis on which to legislate." (p.132).
• "Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples." (p.132).
• "The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples." (pp.133-134).
• "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians." (p.101).
• "Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted." (p.95).
• "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in the child's adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent." (p.95).
• "The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry." (p.84).
• "California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology. Approximately eighteen percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children" (p.78).
• "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions." (p.77).
• "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals." (p.113).
• "The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships." (p.82).
• "... [D]omestic partnerships were created specifically so that California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples. ... The record reflects that marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic partnership. California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same-sex couples." (p.116).From Judge Vaughn R. Walker's decision in the federal lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. US District Court for the Northern District of California, August 4, 2010.