Whereas 45 States protect traditional marriage as the
union of one man and one woman;
Whereas every State whose voters have considered the issue
prohibits same-sex marriage;
Whereas 3 States have redefined traditional marriage only
because the redefinition has been ordered by a court;
Whereas, since 2004, over half the States have codified in
their State Constitutions the legal definition of marriage as the union of one
man and one woman;
Whereas attempts by judges to rewrite the Constitution in
order to amend the definition of traditional marriage to fit their personal
views constitutes improper judicial activism;
Whereas, on August 4, 2010, Chief United States District
Judge Vaughn R. Walker, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruled that California’s
Proposition 8, enacted by popular referendum in 2008, is unconstitutional,
thereby redefining traditional marriage such that it is no longer a union
between one man and one woman;
Whereas Judge Walker failed to conduct himself in an
impartial manner during the course of the proceedings that resulted in such
ruling;
Whereas Judge Walker attempted to illegally
broadcast the trial in disregard of the harassment such broadcast would invite
on witnesses supporting Proposition 8;
Whereas such attempt was ultimately denied by an
extraordinary stay order by the United States Supreme Court issued on January
13, 2010, in which the Supreme Court held Judge Walker did not follow
the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law
;
Whereas the United State Supreme Court further held that
The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to
treat this case differently than other trials in the district
and that
Judge Walker ignore[d] the federal statute that establishes the
procedures by which its rules may be amended
;
Whereas Judge Walker refused to decide the case as a
matter of law, as other courts have done;
Whereas Judge Walker’s decision instead to address
irrelevant factual issues resulted in his ruling to authorize intrusive
discovery of the internal communications of supporters of Proposition 8;
Whereas, on January 4, 2010, such ruling was overturned,
in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a panel of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit;
Whereas the Ninth Circuit panel held that Judge Walker’s
ruling failed to protect the First Amendment associational rights of
Proposition 8 supporters and that, as a result, the exceptional
circumstances presented by this case warrant issuance of a writ of
mandamus
;
Whereas Judge Walker’s decision illegitimately inquired
into the personal and religious motivations of the more than 7 million
Californians, including large majorities of African-Americans, who voted for
Proposition 8;
Whereas, in America, we respect and uphold the right of a
free people to make policy choices through the democratic process;
Whereas more than 7 million Californians decided that
marriage should be preserved, not fundamentally changed;
Whereas California voters simply affirmed the definition
of marriage that predates our Nation and every other nation and form of
government;
Whereas, if a handful of activists are allowed to void a
constitutional amendment protecting marriage, we have eliminated the core of
the American democratic system and will deny more children the mom and the dad
they deserve;
Whereas the most important issue in the Perry case is
whether our Government is of, by, and for the people; and
Whereas a handful of activists have put on trial the right
of California voters to simply affirm a common-sense, historic public policy
position: Now, therefore, be it
That it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that—
(1)Chief United
States District Judge Vaughn R. Walker failed to conduct himself in an
impartial manner before striking down California’s popularly enacted
Proposition 8 and thereby redefined traditional marriage to include same-sex
relationships; and
(2)Chief United
States District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s decision to strike down California’s
popularly enacted Proposition 8 is wrong.