```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1607 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1607

    Disapproving Judge Walker's Proposition 8 Decision on Same-Sex 
                               Marriage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 10, 2010

 Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Jordan of 
Ohio, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Akin, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Latta, 
 Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Jones, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Fleming, 
Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Marchant, and Mr. 
Aderholt) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Disapproving Judge Walker's Proposition 8 Decision on Same-Sex 
                               Marriage.

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
    Resolved, 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.
                                 <all>
```