California Supreme Court decision

Unaccountable Judicial Power Not What Our Founders Envisioned

At nearly the same moment that the California Supreme Court released its surprising, but correct, decision in upholding that state's recently ratified constitutional amendmentprotecting traditional marriage by defining the institution as between one man and one woman, President Barack Obama announced his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Almost immediately, forces on both sides of the U.S. Supreme Court debate staked out their positions — many without having any idea what she actually stands for — and the battle over her nomination began. What is striking to us is just how far we have come from the system of government our Founders envisioned. The news media, pundits, elected officials, public interest groups and scores of Americans have their entire focus on the make up and actions of the judiciary — the third branch of government and the one the Founders intended to be the least powerful.

So here we are today with our freedoms hanging in the balance, with the future definition of terms like marriage and family awaiting validation or reversal by a handful of men and women whom, for the most part, we did not elect. Such is not the Republic we were meant to be, and frankly, such is a Republic that cannot sustain itself for long.

Regardless of the outcome of the nomination proceedings for Judge Sotomayor, our system of government — a Constitutional Republic — loses a cornerstone when the voice and will of the people as expressed through our Constitution is subject to the whims of an elite few.

The people of Virginia in 2006 voted overwhelmingly to protect the definition of marriage. Like California, our laws protecting marriage were at the mercy of the courts until Virginians were given the opportunity to amend the state Constitution to define marriage. Because of that vote a handful of judges should not be able to toss aside thousands of years of human history and the evidence of social science that marriage between one man and one woman is best for society, families and children.

Yet, we know it is very likely that at some point our marriage amendment, or another state's marriage amendment, will face scrutiny by nine people in black robes whom are accountable to no one — some of whom are no longer accountable to the document they swore an oath to uphold.

That is not the America our Founders envisioned.

Virginia News Stand: May 27, 2009

Lots of campaign news today, as one might expect, as Brian Moran racks up more endorsements, and Virginia Republicans gear up for their nominating convention this weekend. But most of the big stuff concerns yesterday's California Supreme Court decision upholding that state's recently ratified constitutional amendment defining marriage as a between one man and one woman, and President Barack Obama's selection of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.  There are several good articles and commentaries on these subjects in the National News and Commentary sections below. Also, please read Bobby Eberle's rejoinder to retired General Colin Powell regarding his campaign to minimize conservatism in the Republican Party. Finally, be sure to read about a bill one congressman has introduced that would make 2010 "The Year of the Bible" — and his co-sponsors include members of both parties, as well as Christian and Jewish members. 


Virginians critique nominee (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Moran picking up local support (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star

Democrats' Inside Man Steps Into Spotlight (Washington Post)

GOP hopefuls for Fralin's House seat hold forum (Roanoke Times

McDonnell backs Mullins for chairman of state GOP (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

GOP will choose slate of state candidates this weekend (Winchester Star)

LU Democrats club to meet with Falwell today (Lynchburg News & Advance

National News:

Calif. Ruling Shows Hurdles Remain for Gay Marriage (Washington Post)

Don't expect smooth sailing for Sotomayor (

For Sotomayor, discrimination case likely issue (AP/

2010: The year of the Bible? (


'Empathy' in Action (Thomas Sowell/

Sotomayor: Racial Politics and Making Policy (Bobby Eberle/

To Gen. Powell . . . Just Where Have We Gone Too Far To The Right? (Bobby Eberle/

Marriage In California

Now that newspapers are celebrating the in-progress homosexual "marriages" in California with front page articles, radio stations with top of the hour gushes about "newlyweds" and television news with live remotes from various city halls and courthouses throughout the Golden State, there's not much more to say, but to let the circuses speak for themselves. Funny how four people can overturn the will of an entire state. Except that this issue is no laughing matter. Pro-marriage advocates two weeks ago, however, gained almost double the necessary petition signatures required to get a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage on the California ballot this November. That will be the for all the marbles. (About 694,00 were required and more than 1.1 million signed. Read more here.) The Wall Street Journal, ever looking for a financial impact, quotes something called the Williams Institute,"a think tank on sexual-orientation law at the University of California at Los Angeles's law school," as predicting homosexual weddings "will generate $684 million over three years for California's economy" but that "the social impact — and the impact on the nation — is expected to go far beyond the economy." Thank goodness for understatements.

Which brings us to Virginia for two reasons. The California Supreme Court decision one-upped (as difficult as that is to imagine) the infamous Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, which started this nonsense, by granting marriage licenses to non-Californians. Massachusetts clerks do not. (By the way, in California, licenses now read "Party A" and "Party B" in lieu of "bride" and "groom." How sentimental. How much is this going to cost Hallmark to reprint its wedding cards?) Still, how many of these couples will return to their home states and begin legal challenges to have their "marriages" recognized in those states? Plenty, according to the Alliance For Marriage. Not only that, New York Governor David Patterson has issued an executive order for his state to recognize "same-sex marriages" performed in California, Massachusetts and Canada (read the news release here). Virginia's homosexual lobby, through its words and legislative actions, has made no secret of its desire to whittle away, water down and eventually overturn the Commonwealth's Marriage Amendment. Will law suits be far behind?

The other reason Virginia comes to mind is that during the 2006 campaign, one of the many points of misinformation by the homosexual lobby was that, if passed, the Marriage Amendment would have the "unintended consequence" of prohibiting any couple (brothers, sisters, business partnerships) from entering into contracts and doing business together. Of course that hasn't happened and will not happen. Best proof yet? A neighborhood newsletter (we leave no stone unturned in our investigative journalism; click here): One of the leading fundraisers against the Marriage Amendment, Mac Pence of Richmond, and his partner, have bought a historic mansion on Monument Avenue and are converting it to a bed and breakfast. We doubt they even considered that they couldn't start this business together, proving the homosexual lobby's disingenuousness from the beginning. In fact, we're still waiting for that first lawsuit to be filed over any one of the several imaginary grievances that were so hysterically predicted.

Of course, this is but one small example of the falsity of their 2006 arguments. The only difference now is that with the California ruling they will create more misinformative arguments and make them louder, stronger and more frequent. Some will be emboldened to seek the courts. Why not, especially if four people can change the will of millions of voters? Which makes the bizzare scenes coming from California more than a just cause for concern.