Homosexual advocates in California failed to gather enough signatures to place a measure on this year’s ballot challenging the constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman.
Californians voted for the constitutional amendment in 2008. Even in this liberal state, voters back the simple definition: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Every time but one, when marriage has been put to a popular vote it has won — and the one loss in Arizona (due to confusion and misrepresentation by homosexual activists) was placed in a “win” column two years later when a second ballot measure passed.
So, homosexual activists turn to courts to impose same-sex “marriage” on states. That’s what they have done in California. Soon after California voters spoke, advocates for homosexuals filed a federal lawsuit to overturn the will of the people. We’re waiting on that decision. Whichever way it goes, everyone expects it to be appealed — so once again, the fate of marriage is in the hands of judges.
But we have a thread of hope in this case, because the judge has acted so outrageously. As the trial began, one of his pre-trial decisions was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Vaughn Walker fixed the rules to allow real-time video broadcasts of the trial. Before this case, no photos or broadcasts of proceedings were allowed.
His actions were clearly an attempt to intimidate witnesses. Supporters of the marriage amendment have been threatened, fired from their jobs, and their homes and cars vandalized. A number of expert witnesses declined to testify when they learned that the judge was going to allow the trial to be broadcast. They knew they’d become a special target of homosexual activists.
This unjust decision (along with a number of others he’s made) casts a shadow of doubt on Judge Walker’s ability to handle this case impartially and righteously. Unwittingly, he made a better case for marriage proponents on appeal.
While one news report claims that this latest attempt to get a ballot measure to overturn the California marriage amendment may have garnered more votes than it could signatures, that’s questionable. The outbreak of violence and threats by homosexual activists after the marriage amendment passed helped to expose the scary nature — and intentions — of same-sex advocates.
Americans became keenly aware that homosexual activists are not tolerant and will use any means to intimidate and oppress others. It highlighted that this movement is different from the civil rights movement.
What homosexual activists demand of others, they are not willing to do themselves. It’s not about equal rights, but superiority and subservience. That may be a better explanation for why this effort to gather signatures failed.