IV 

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; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1607 IH 

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 inVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:08 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR1607.IH HR1607

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1607 IH 

trusive 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 1607 IH 

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 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) Chief United States District Judge Vaughn 

4 R. Walker failed to conduct himself in an impartial 

5 manner before striking down California’s popularly 

6 enacted Proposition 8 and thereby redefined tradi7 tional marriage to include same-sex relationships; 

8 and 

9 (2) Chief United States District Judge Vaughn 

10 R. Walker’s decision to strike down California’s pop11 ularly enacted Proposition 8 is wrong. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS