An activist Judge, August 4, struck down California's same-sex "marriage" ban voted by the people of the state as a violation of the civil rights of homosexuals, but a pending appeal of the landmark ruling could prevent same-gender weddings from resuming in the state any time soon.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8, declaring that limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves no legitimate purpose and is an "artifact" rooted in "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices."

While the ruling affects only California, the appeal will go to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over nine Western states. Walker said he would consider waiting for the Ninth Circuit to render its decision before he makes his opinion final and requires the state to stop enforcing the ban. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments on the issue.

Judge Should Have Recused Himself

On two separate occasions, voters in The Golden State declared traditional marriage as the law of the state -- once as a state statute and then as a constitutional amendment. Bryan Fischer, Director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, calls Walker's decision a "tyrannical, abusive, and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance" -- and argues that members of Congress should immediately launch impeachment proceedings against Walker.

"[It's an] absolutely outrageous and unconscionable ruling by this federal judge to so cavalierly overturn the expressed will of seven-million voters in the state of California," Fischer offers. "[He] didn't even have the legal right to consider this case. Marriage policy is not established in the federal constitution. Under the Tenth Amendment that issue is reserved for the states. So this judge trampled the Constitution [and] trampled the will of the voters in California."

In a press release, AFA identifies Walker as a "practicing homosexual" who, for that reason, should have recused himself from this case "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity," Fischer concurs.

"It's really no different in our judgment than having a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to issue a ruling on an anti-pornography statute," says the AFA spokesman. "There's a conflict of interest there."

Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com echoes Fischer's comments. "Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual," he notes. "He should have never taken this case for that reason -- and for [another] very important reason: this does not belong in federal court."

As noted by Fischer, Thomasson points out that Article 4 of the Constitution says states are guaranteed a republic form of government -- meaning government by the people, not by the judges. And the Tenth Amendment, he continues, says that whatever is not the exclusive authority of the federal government is up to the states. He believes that leaves jurisdiction over marriage to the states.

The California pro-family leader tells OneNewsNow that Judge Walker has violated his oath of office. "He swore that he would support and defend and be impartially faithful to the written words of the United States Constitution," says Thomasson. Instead, he says Walker has "imposed his biased homosexual agenda" upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California.

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America (CWA) takes Walker to task for a ruling that negates a state constitutional amendment that more than 52 percent of California voters approved.

"Judge Walker's decision goes far beyond homosexual marriage to strike at the very heart of our representative democracy," she argues. "Judge Walker has declared that his opinion is supreme and the opinion of the people of California no longer is needed, that they are no longer free to govern themselves."

She says Walker missed another very important point. "Marriage is not a political toy. It's too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance," says the CWA leader. "Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society -- and it cannot be replaced by any other kind of living arrangement."

Wright adds that Californians approved the amendment because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists "use same-sex marriage as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parents' values and to harass, sue, and punish people who disagree."

The Roe v. Wade of same-sex marriage?

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says the ruling shows "a real contempt" for the democratic process. "What's really disturbing is that Judge Walker essentially said that the only motivation for this is hostility towards homosexuals as individuals -- and nothing could be further from the truth," states the FRC spokesman.

In Sprigg's view, Walker is ignoring the obvious. "That marriage has everything to do with bringing a man and a woman together for the reproduction of the human race and to provide them with a mother and father to raise them to maturity," he argues. "It really doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality per se."

And according to Sprigg, it is not a court ruling that just affects California. "If this reasoning were to prevail on appeal in the Supreme Court, this would be the Roe v. Wade of same-sex marriage. This would impose legalized same-sex marriage on all 50 states," Including, he notes, the 29 states that have enshrined traditional marriage in their constitutions.