Today homoexual activist liberal Bush appointee San Francisco Judge Walker announced that “gay marriages” may begin in California next week.

What is this guy the Emperor of California?

This is Groundhog Day all over again.

As I have written numerous times on this site, judges can’t make law!

Prop 8 which amended the California Constitution limiting marriage to one man-one woman can’t, according to the Supreme Law of California, the California Constitution, be “overturned,” “struck down” or “repealed” but by another constitutional amendment passed by the sovereign people of the state of California.

Furthermore, marriage licences can’t be altered in any way or issued to same sex couples without a binding, enabling, accompanying statute.

And the law has not changed and can’t no matter what sodomite judges in San Francisco say.

Once again, Governor Schwarzenegger is staying true to his father’s Nazi colors by promising to authorize the changes to and issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in direct violation of his oath to uphold the California Constitution and only enforce and administer the laws and statutes on the books in California (as opposed to a judge’s illegal and unconstitutional pronouncement).

And sadly enough, once again, our leading “Christian” and “conservative” leaders and organizations such as Focus on the Family, ACLJ, Pacific Justice, AFA, Liberty, ADF, FRC etc…, will cede the toxic liberal lie that courts can make law. None of these “watchdog” organizations and organizational leaders held Mitt Romney responsible when he unilaterally, illegally and unconstitutionally instituted same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts. In fact many of them supported or endorsed him for president of the United States. And none of these groups held Governor Schwarzenegger responsible for pulling a Romney when he initially authorized the 20,000 plus marriage licenses to be illegally altered and issued to homosexual couples from California two years ago.

And sadly enough, all of these groups have complained about “judicial tyranny” and have sent out donation letters and e-mails begging for money to “fight this battle in court” instead of drawing attention to the obvious fact that the executive branch may never enforce a judges opinion in an individual matter before him and that, by doing just that, Schwarzenegger is violating his oath and the inalienable right of the sovereign people of California to govern themselves.

As the founder of the “conservative and Christian right” in America, Paul Weyrich wrote (which was ghost written by Oxford educated, John Haskins) shortly before he died a few years ago:

Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions are binding on the specific parties named and “entitled to very high respect and consideration (by) other departments of the government.” But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the claim that judges’ opinions are the law of the land:

“..if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

The sad reality is that we get “judicial tyranny” because we (Christians and conservatives) have allowed the judiciary to excercise constitutional legislative powers they don’t possess.

Our leading “conservative” and “Christian” organizations and leaders continue to score goals for the other team.

Today, homosexual activist San Francisco U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (George H.W. Bush appointee) issued an opinion that Prop 8, amended into law by California Voters in 2008, which defines marriage as limited to one man-one woman, is “unconstitutional.”

Here we go again.

Most headlines cite how Judge Walker “struck down” the so-called “gay marriage ban.”

For starters, judges can’t “strike down” any law whether it be a statute or constitutional amendment such as Prop 8. And it is a shame that so many “conservative” lawyers continue to parrot this toxic liberal lie. Judges may hear individual cases and rule on them as long as they have jurisdiction. But judges don’t possess any legislative authority. Period!

The judge did have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case and issue a ruling. But a judge’s opinion isn’t law.

The only way the actual constitutional amendment, Prop 8,may be altered or overturned in any way is via another constitutional amendment, according to the California Constitution itself. Only the voters may revoke or overturn a constitutional amendment or initiative statute.

Thus, one man-one woman marriage is still the law of the land unless and until the voters amend the constitution to revoke it.

Schwarzennegger already pulled a “Mitt Romney” once by unilaterally, illegally and unconstitutionally authorizing changes to and issuance of marriage licenses without a binding, enabling, accompanying statute in direct violation of his constitutionally sworn oath to enforce the law (as opposed to unconstitutional court opinions).

For that every pro-family Christian legal organization in America should have called for The Gilie-Man’s impeachment. (Which none of them did since almost all of them from Liberty Council to the ACLJ to ADF believe the lie that judges actually can make law).

If Schwarzenegger again falsely claims that a judge’s utterly absurd opinion that a constitutional amendment is “unconstitutional,” which it OBVIOUSLY isn’t since the generally accepted definition of marriage has always been understood to be exclusive to one man-one woman, he should, without a doubt, be impeached for failing to enforce the law…which has still not changed and still limits marriage to one man-one woman in the state of California!

I am not surprised that this homosexual activist liberal Judge Walker issued this totally absurd unconstitutional opinion.

After all, that’s what activist liberal homosexual activist judges do.

And I predicted that this is exaclty what would happen in a post I wrote on Feb 14th of this year.

But sadder and more frustrating to me is that fact that our so-called “Christian” “conservative” “constitutionalist” lawyers, pro-family leaders, pundits and politicians will almost without exception cede and perpetuate the toxic liberal lie that the judge “struck down” the marriage amendment and that the only recourse is to fight it out in court instead of calling on Scwarzegger to uphold his oath and ignore the activist and totally unconstitutional ruling as is Scwarzenegger’s solemn duty as the chief law enforcement officer of the state of California.

The reason that liberal judges are able to “legislate from the bench” and “strike down laws” with impugnity is because “conservatives” have speciously conceded the lie that they possess the right to do so.

Is there not one single Christian conservative leader who will denounce this joke of a ruling as the legally null and void farce that it obviously is and demand that Governor Swarzenegger uphold his sworn oath and ignore it?

Obviously pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, “conservative” “Republican” Aaanald, will never uphold the Constitution (since we know liberals instinctively loathe the Supreme Law of the Land).

But wouldn’t it be nice if even one “rule of law conservative” at least attempted to demand that the rule of law actually be upheld instead of ceding imaginary powers the judiciary doesn’t possess?

It’s obvious to me that the homosexual activist “judge” Walker in San Francisco will rule for the homosexual plaintiffs who claim Prop 8, legally defining marriage as limited to one man and one woman in the California Constitution, to be “discriminatory” and “unconstitutional.”

If Judge Walker issues a ruling that Prop 8 is “unconstitutional,” he should be impeached immediately by Governor Schwarzenegger. No judge possesses the authority to “overturn” a constitutional amendment passed via the proscribed legislative process by the sovereign voters of the state.

But is there any doubt that “conservative” “Republican” Governor Arnold will pull a Mitt Romney and assert that he “has no choice but to uphold the court’s ruling?”

Of course he will.

And when he does he will have once again abnegated his sworn duty to uphold the federal and state constitution he swore an oath in front of God Almighty to protect and defend.

The only way a citizen initiative or constitutional amendment can be changed, in any way, according to the California Constitution, is by another citizen initiative or amendment. So for Prop 8 in the California Constitution, which has enshrined into statutory law the legal definition of marriage as “one man and one woman,” to be “overturned,” another constitutional amendment would have to be passed by a majority of voters in California. That is the only way the law can change. End of story. Case closed!

Therefore, if Schwarzenegger allows an unelected judge’s toothless, unconstitutional and illegal opinion to become, in essence, the supreme law of the land (abolishing in effect, Proposition 8), conservative, pro-family, and Christian politicians, lawyers, activists and leaders should call for Schwarzenegger to be removed from office for violating his sworn oath to only enforce the laws and statutes of the state of California (as opposed to unconstitutional court opinions belched forth from radical homosexual activist judges on the 9th Circuit.)

If the people’s right to govern themselves and define marriage is “overturned” by a branch of government (the judicial branch) which doesn’t possess the authority to make or “overturn” any laws or constitutional amendments, it will only be because “our side’s” “conservative” “pro-family” and “Christian” politicians, lawyers, leaders and pundits, once again ceded the toxic liberal lie that courts possess the authority to make law.

Link to press release on ChristianNewsWire

MEDIA ADVISORY, Sept. 18 /Christian Newswire/ — This weekend, leading Christian pro-family advocacy organization Family Research Council (FRC) will feature former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as one of its featured speakers at its “Value Voters Summit.” www.valuesvotersummit.org Despite Romney’s unbiblical and far left-wing record as Massachusetts governor on the issues FRC claims to care the most about, FRC President Tony Perkins continues to refer to Romney as a “friend of the pro-family movement.”

That’s why we have authored the website www.tonyperkinstellthetruth.blogspot.com, because we believe someone claiming to stand for biblical teaching, as Mr. Perkins claims to, should have the integrity to tell the truth about the candidates he’s providing a platform to reach Christian voters.

“In Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan that he is applauding you can get an abortion for $50,” said noted GOP strategist Mary Matalin on 1040-WHO Radio in Des Moines, Iowa, on December 12th, 2007.

We would like to ask Mr. Perkins if Ms. Matalin is lying, and if she isn’t, do taxpayer-funded, $50 elective surgical abortions sound like a policy signed into law (2 years AFTER Romney’s supposed “pro-life conversion”) by a “friend of the pro-family movement?”

Please tell the truth, Mr. Perkins.

CNS.com reported on August 25th, 2008, that before the Massachusetts legislature had even had a chance to pass a law legalizing homosexual marriages (which they never did), Governor Romney unilaterally and unconstitutionally authorized the illegal alterations to and issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples, and even went so far as to demand that justices of the peace who wouldn’t perform homosexual “marriages” for moral reasons, resign. www.cnsnews.com/news/article/34561

We would like to ask Mr. Perkins if CNS.com is lying, and if it isn’t, does that sound like the actions of a, “friend of the pro-family movement?”

Please tell the truth, Mr. Perkins.

Attorney, scholar, and activist Phyllis Schlafly said Romney was claiming he had to “follow the law” when he unilaterally and illegally enacted homosexual “marriages,” but that “there is no law (in Massachusetts) that requires or even allows” homosexual marriages. www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56674

We would like to ask Mr. Perkins if Ms. Schlafly is a liar, and if she isn’t, does this sound like the actions of a “friend of the pro-family movement?”

Please tell the truth, Mr. Perkins.

In March of 2008, World Magazine reported the late Paul Weyrich admitted in a room of his peers at the Council for National Policy meeting in New Orleans, that he was wrong to have endorsed Romney for president. Weyrich is reported to have said, “Before all of you and almighty God I want to say I was wrong” and that it was “the worst mistake of (his) life.”

We would like to ask Mr. Perkins if Mr. Weyrich, one of the Founding Fathers of the Christian Conservative movement and Reagan Revolution, was wrong, and if he wasn’t then how can you continue to refer to the founding father of sodomy-based “marriages” and $50 tax-subsidized elective surgical abortions as a “friend of the pro-family movement?”

Please tell the truth, Mr. Perkins.

If you are attending the Values Voters Summit this weekend or would like more information, please visit www.tonyperkinstellthetruth.blogspot.com. Perhaps you can reach Mr. Perkins and ask him to tell the truth, since we have attempted to do so privately on several occasions over the last several years and all of our pleas to reach our brother in Christ have been ignored.

Hat Tip Laigles Forum

For years practicing homosexuals, bi-sexuals, lezbians, and transgenders claimed that they were “born that way.”

Even the American Phychiatric Association was bullied by militant homosexual activists into issuing the following statement:

There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.

Recently, however, the APA reversed themselves by issuing this statement:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

The courageous and very witty Laurie Higgins, Director of IFI’s DSA -Illinois Family Institute has a very nice analysis of the most recent finding that children of practicing homosexuals are about 7 times more likely to identify as non-heterosexual as children who have a mom and a dad are.

In response to an AP article that appeared in the Sacramento Bee entitled, “California high court set to rule on gay marriage,” which included many false statements about the legality of same-sex “marriage,” (including the two below in bold) I wrote the following short letter to Lisa Leff, the author of the AP article.

“The constitutional amendment approved by voters in November overruled the court’s 4-3 ruling from a year ago that briefly legalized same-sex unions. “
“Since then, three other states - Iowa, Maine and Vermont - have joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in making same-sex marriage legal,…”

Dear Lisa,
There is so much inaccuracy with your piece I don’t know where to begin.
First, if the CA Supreme Court issues an opinion that the constitutional amendment (Proposition Eight) is “unconstitutional” it will have NO impact on the actual amendment itself. Only the sovereign people of CA may revoke, overturn, or in any way amend a constitutional amendment. Courts can not enforce their own opinions and possess no constitutional authority to “overturn,” “revoke,” or “strike-down” any law, statute, or constitutional amendment for any reason… ever. If the court opines that Proposition 8 is “unconstitutional” they should be impeached for issuing an illegal and unconstitutional opinion.
And if Governor Schwarzenegger doesn’t ignore the opinion and illegally authorizes the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples without a binding accompanying enabling statute, he will be violating his oath and breaking the law as he did when he illegally authorized the changes to and issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples when the court issued a similar opinion that Prop 22, the voter initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman passed by 64% of Californians in 2000, was “unconstitutional.”
Finally, your article incorrectly states that “gay marriage” is legal in Iowa and Massachusetts. The marriage statute, chapter 207 in the Massachusetts General Laws, has NEVER been amended and still limits marriage to one man and one woman. Mitt Romney illegally authorized the changes to and issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in fulfillment to a campaign promise he made to the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans in 2002. Similarly, same sex “marriage” has never been legalized in Iowa.
Iowa Democrat Governor Chet Culver recently took a page out of the Romney-Schwarzenegger playbook by speciously claiming that the court opinion on a single case before it legalized same sex marriage. Culver, like Romney and Schwarzenegger, belongs in jail for violating his oath and breaking the law by illegally instituting same sex “marriage” without the consent of the sovereign people of Iowa.
I hope that you will correct the record in the spirit of honest reporting and for the sake of preserving whatever is left of the rule of law and our Republic.
Sincerely Yours,
Gregg Jackson

“..if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” Abraham Lincoln

I can’t for the life of me understand how it is that those who call themselves “rule of law” “conservatives” aren’t asking the following questions:

How can gay “marriage” be legal in Iowa if the only constitutionally prescribed body of government authorized to make laws, the legislature, has not amended the current marriage statute to accommodate same sex “marriage?”

By what legal authority are marriage licences being altered and issued since there is no legally binding accompanying enabling statute authorizing anybody in the executive branch to alter or issue marriage licences to anybody accept one man and one woman?

Why is not one “conservative” politician in Iowa calling for the impeachment of the judicial autocrats who have violated their oaths by issuing the anti-constitutional and illegal opinion?

Why has not one “conservative lawyer, leader or pundit stated publicly that the Iowa opinion is a toothless anti-constitutional ruling that should be ignored and is under no circumstances the “new law?”

Why is not one “conservative” politician stating that it is illegal for any executive branch official to alter and issue marriage certificates to any same sex couples without a binding enabling statute and calling for the impeachment of any who do?

Are those who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution violating their oaths if they allow executive branch officials to alter and issue marriage licences to same sex couples without a binding enabling statute?

Why do we even need a legislative and executive branch if the judicial branch (which the Founders intended by design to be “by far the weakest of the three branches with neither the power of the sword or of the purse”) can make and enforce laws merely by issuing opinions from the bench?

If heterosexual marriage is now “unconstitutional,” why can’t marriage licenses be issued to polygamous and polyamorous couples? Why limit it to homosexual couples? Why can’t licenses be issued to members of the same family? Can a man or woman now marry his/her dog or other animal now that the court has opined that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is “unconstitutional?”

Can we honestly say that we have a constitutional Republic under-girded by the rule of law in which we are a “self-governing people” if we are actively complicit in submissively allowing courts to essentially make and enforce laws?