Posted by
Bert Chapman on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 7:51:45 PM
Nullification was a doctrine advocated by slavery proponents in the 19th century. It claimed that states had the constitutional authority to overturn federal laws they considered unjust. The doctrine was discredited by the Civil War, but recent legal developments are giving it a new lease on life. In Arizona, we have the spectacle of its state government taking strong action to enforce immigration laws which the federal government refuses to do and which, in fact, has filed a lawsuit against Arizona's valiant attempts to properly enforce federal law. Another instance where nullification is becoming increasingly justified was last week's California District Court decision by "Judge" Vaughan Walker overturning the California electorate's November 2008 decision banning same-sex marriage.
This case was brought by militant gay rights proponents who claimed their civil rights were violated. First of all, marriage is not a right but a legal and moral privilege granted by state governments and religious institutions. Marriage is also a state prerogative so this case should never had been heard in a federal court anyway! The only thing which can overturn election results must be subsequent election results on the same subject; not court rulings!
Throughout the world and human history government and religious institutions, representing an immense variety of political, religious, and cultural traditions, have justifiably restricted marriage to being a covenant relationship between a man and a woman. Recent decades have, sadly, seen an erosion of this common sense as militantly organized individuals and groups (primarily in legal circles and academe) have seduced many into believing that same sex couples should have the rights and privileges of legally sanctioned marriage. Over 30 times this has been placed on the ballot in U.S. states, and EVERY SINGLE TIME traditional male-female marriage has been upheld by voters.
Now an openly gay judge, who should have been removed from this case for his personally chosen ideological bias, has arrogantly decided he is entitled to overturn the will of California voters and send this case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and probably the Supreme Court. We can still hope this repulsive ruling and horribly administered trial will be overturned, but this case shows us how dangerously far the movement for sexual perversity has advanced in this country in recent decades. The decision itself has the intellectual quality of a whining child with a predisposition to rule in favor of same-sex marriage regardless of what the historical and legal facts, along with commonsense moral tradition say. There's an excellent dissection of this ruling in National Review's Bench Memos blog by Ed Whelan on August 5.
If heaven forbid, the Supreme Court upholds this shameful decision, states need to take concentrated efforts to refuse to recognize same-sex "marriages" issued by other U.S. jurisdictions. If Republicans gain control of Congress this fall, they should withhold "Judge" Walker's salary and benefits from the next federal judiciary appropriations legislation and they should also create subcommittees within the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to review and fast-track legislation to overturn federal court decisions that are so legally and morally horrendous. Roe v. Wade is obviously a prime target for such legislative reversal. Proponents of traditional marriage need to provide better social science empirical data to demonstrate the dangers of granting marital status to same-sex couples. For instance, in countries such as Sweden which have allowed this to occur, the number of children growing in two-parent families and who are born in wedlock has declined significantly while increasing social welfare and criminal justice costs for these countries. We must be prepared to wage a relentless intellectual war against proponents of same-sex marriage and be prepared to erect any kind of legal firewalls, up to and including nullification of court rulings, to protect traditional marriage against this insidious threat.