NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: April 2011

Excerpt of Opening Statement by Chairman Trent Franks at DOMA Hearing

Here are some excerpts from Chairman Trent Franks' (R-AZ) excellent opening remarks at today's hearing in the Subcommittee on the Constitution: "The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)".

For decades, Administrations of both parties have followed a policy of defending every federal law for which a reasonable argument can be made. This policy of defending laws respects Congress’s role as the maker of laws and the Courts’ special role in addressing the constitutionality of federal laws.

When the President unilaterally declares a duly enacted law unconstitutional, he cuts Congress and the American people out of the lawmaking process. Such heavy-handed Presidential action undermines the separation of powers and the principle that America is a constitutional republic predicated on the rule of law.

... As liberal constitutional scholar and then-head of the Office of Legal Counsel Walter Dellinger advised President Clinton, “a President should proceed with caution and with respect for the obligation that each of the branches shares for the maintenance of constitutional government.”

President Obama’s edict that DOMA is unconstitutional failed to show the caution and respect for Congress and the courts that Professor Dellinger counseled.

Far from cautious and deferential, the President’s decision was a baldly opportunistic attempt to free himself from a political dilemma. The Administration had a duty to defend DOMA, but powerful constituencies of the President did not want the President to defend it. Politics trumped duty.

... It is true that past Presidents have declined to defend certain statutes that they, in good faith, determined were unconstitutional. But never has a President refused to defend a law of such public importance, on a legal theory so far beyond any court precedent, for such transparently political reasons.

The President’s decision to ignore his duty threatens both the structure of our republic, and the time-tested structure of family itself.

The arguments in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act are not just reasonable. The arguments in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act are reasonable and right, and they have repeatedly prevailed in court.

... I am encouraged that the House is now intervening to fill the void left by the Administration’s abdication of its duty to defend the laws of the land.

Marriage deserves to be defended.

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher's full remarks can be found here.

Erica Manfred on the harm of adultery, even when the kids are grown

She's the author of "He's History, You're Not: Surviving Divorce After Forty". She writes about the harm to women and children that happens even in post age-40 divorces:

A year ago, Cynthia Shackelford, a 62-year-old North Carolina wife won an "alienation of affection" case against her husband's mistress. The case is ironic on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start. The facts: Shackelford charged that the other woman, Anne Lundquist, 49, broke up her marriage of 33 years by setting out to deliberately seduce her husband in 2004.

... The suffering of grown children is ignored [after divorce]. Young adult children like Shackelford's may be traumatized to the extent of suffering severe depression, or being unable to form committed relationships of their own. At the least they lose one of their parents when they take sides.

... Most states once had "at-fault" divorce laws, where you couldn't get a divorce without proving the other side had committed adultery. These laws were thrown out in the 1970s and replaced by no-fault divorce, which means basically a spouse can say, "I divorce thee," and be out of there. The irony is that feminists once supported the switch to no-fault divorce, although it's turned out that women and children are the ones who suffer. Unless the couple is wealthy, there's never enough cash to support both the ex wife and new mistress in the style to which both have been accustomed. The mistress usually wins and the cast off old wife and her children get shafted.

Last Chance! Gifts to Defend Marriage Matched Up to Midnight Tonight!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

President Obama declared war on marriage his very first day in office. Quickly he nominated two new members to the Supreme Court, solidifying the liberal bloc of the bench, even appointing his own solicitor general to the nation's high court. His party controlled both houses of Congress, introducing bills to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and lawsuits in several states were making their way through the federal court system, headed for the Supreme Court.

It was a perfect storm threatening to force same-sex marriage on the nation.

Every branch of government moving in concert to undermine and repeal the one federal law protecting marriage.

Double your money: DefendDOMA now!

But the American people stood up and said enough. Last November, the American people elected the most pro-marriage Congress in a decade or more. And together we have held the new Congress accountable, sending more than 100,000 messages urging Congress to go on record in support of marriage – and putting the brakes on the inside-the-beltway momentum of gay marriage advocates.

We've made some important progress, but the battle is far from over. Within the next two years, the U.S. Supreme Court will be faced with a Roe v. Wade type decision on marriage – potentially taking marriage out of the hands of the individual states and forcing a same-sex marriage regime on the entire nation.

This is the single most significant threat to marriage the nation has ever faced.

And that's why a generous donor challenged us with a $1 Million Defend DOMA matching grant. When President Obama refused to defend marriage, we stepped up, and the House leadership answered the bell. But much more needs to be done, filing legal briefs in defense of marriage, lobbying in the halls of Congress, and mobilizing grassroots support for marriage all across the nation through online, telephone, and media campaigns.

Just a few hours left! Help reach NOM's $1 Million Defend DOMA challenge today! Please click here to make your most generous gift!

Your gift of $30, $300 or even $3000 or more will help make sure we have the funds to do what President Obama won't do: Defend DOMA in the courts, in the halls of Congress, and reaching out to marriage supporters all across the nation. Every dollar raised before midnight tonight will be matched by the challenge grant, doubling its impact for marriage.

Gay marriage advocates are pushing an aggressive agenda to force same-sex marriage on the entire country in one fell swoop – erasing 30 state constitutional amendments and the votes of nearly 40 million Americans in a single 5-4 Supreme Court ruling. Stopping this attack is our single most critical priority in the next two years. Please join us with your gift today.

Brian Brown

Faithfully,

Brian brown

Brian S. Brown

President

National Organization for Marriage

Dan Savage and Me

Dan Savage is obsessed with me. I posted one comment on our blog and he's since written three responses: this is the latest and weirdest, because it involved postponing answering a man's question in order to engage in an extended diatribe against (conversation with?) me.

Several readers have wondered why I didn't really respond to his original "attack-response." Well, it's because he never really responded to the issues I raised. He went into what marriage counselors call the "kitchen sink" mode--throwing everything he could against me. Since I don't feel similarly uber-negative about him, I just had little interest in responding with a massive counter attack.

To the charge of--how can you say the Dan Savage may not know about women but the Pope does?--I would say, well if Dan is the Vicar of Christ, maybe you should believe him.

But really the point I was making in the original critique was not really a moral critique but a practical one. A man with a wonderful, sexually responsive girlfriend found himself craving sexual variety. One response is: risk this relationship to get everything you want. But men who actually want to attract women--even for what I would call immoral relationships--might have a different response. "You crazy guy don't you appreciate what you got?!?"

I speculated that Dan didn't have that response because he's not intuitively aware of the realities of opposite-sex relationships. But maybe that's not the reason, maybe he's just personally dense!

Anyway, here's Dan's latest weird diatribe against me. (warning: some readers may find the content offensive)

BTW, wives who refuse to have sex with their husband are endangering their marriages. On that Dan, me and the Catholic church all agree.

Zsa Zsa Gabor, 94, Wants a Child via Surrogates, Egg Donors, Artificial Insemination, Husband says

As Ms. Gabor's daughter puts it, this is just "weird":

Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband wants his 94-year-old wife to become a mother again using an egg donor, artificial insemination and a surrogate mother, Prince Frederic von Anhalt told CNN Thursday.

... Gabor's only child, Francesca Hilton, described herself as shocked when told of the plan Thursday.

"That's just weird," Hilton said. (CNN)

Why Adoption But Not SSM? A Reply to Prof. Culhane

Prof. Culhane writes:

Why adoption, but no marriage?

Whenever I speak about LGBT rights, audiences are hard-pressed to explain why almost all states allow gays and lesbians – single or partnered – to adopt or foster-parent children, but so few allow us to marry..."

Most people probably didn't even notice the debate on gay adoption in the 1990s but I did. The argument was made: "there are not enough parents for abandoned children. Regardless of what you think about 'the ideal' a good gay parent is better than no parent at all."

That makes sense. No one ever suggested that gay adoption represented a rejection of the idea that the ideal for children is a mom and a dad. Until now, years after the fact.

Adoption is the way we get the best we can for children who do not have the ideal. It tells us little about whether we want to protect through marriage the ideal that children ought to have a mom and a dad.

CA Gov. Jerry Brown: "We the People are Sovereign"

When it comes to taxes, but apparently not gay marriage:

In making his case for a public vote on taxes Wednesday, Gov. Jerry Brown made an interesting reference to a line in the state constitution: "All political power is inherent in the people." It is in Article II, Section I, a part of the constitution related to laws on the initiative, referendum and recall process.

"It's a question of who's sovereign in this country and in this state," Brown said Wednesday. "It's we the people. In fact, California says, in the initiative part of the constitution, ultimate legislative authority rests with the people of California. And I'll take my case to them."

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher Testified Before The Subcommittee on the Constitution: "Defending Marriage"

“Every single time the American people have had the chance to vote, 31 out of 31 times, they have affirmed that marriage is and should remain the union of husband and wife.” - Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Today, Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution: “Defending Marriage” hearing.

President Obama’s arrogant decision earlier this year to cease protecting the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), after it passed in 1996 overwhelming with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Clinton, left the House of Representatives no alternative but to step-in and defend DOMA. DOMA defines marriage for federal purposes as one man and one woman, and clarifies that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Ms. Gallagher applauded the House of Representatives for “stepping forward and defending marriage by defending DOMA.”

Ms. Gallagher testified that: “Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that create new life and connect those children in love to their mother and father … This is the rationale for the national definition of marriage proposed by Congress in passing DOMA: ‘civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing.’”

“Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the national norm, the consensus of state law, and of human history. Every single time the American people have had the chance to vote, 31 out of 31 times, they have affirmed that marriage is and should remain the union of husband and wife,” Ms. Gallagher concluded.

Ms. Gallagher’s testimony can be read in its entirety here:

MGDOMATestimonyAp152011FINAL

"Free to be quirky Mormons, or whatever religion we choose"

A Utah Mormon native writes about the freedom to be religious, quirks and all:

Religious freedom was the topic of a recent address by University of Utah President Michael Young, who said that Mormons in particular ought to be “among the most passionate civil libertarians in the world, to preserve our religious freedoms.” Young, a descendant of Utah colonizer Brigham Young, detailed what he sees as attacks on religious freedoms and called for individual LDS Church members to pay attention. “Often,” he noted, “it’s zoning boards or city councils that make decisions that impinge on religious liberties.”

And what would Utah Mormons do without our religious freedom? Who can imagine life without the freedom to avoid coffee and tea, while swigging down sodas and energy drinks?  Utah Mormons are free to worry about anybody who is over 22 and not married, free to decorate empty gallon paint buckets for our home décor, and free to wear ugh-lee floral print dresses. What would Utah Mormons do with our Sabbath Day, if we weren’t working so hard with church callings, meetings, meetings, and more meetings, followed by big Sunday dinners? Utah Mormons are free to corner the market on ice cream, dehydrated food storage items, Jell-O molds, and glue guns — and we actually have classes on making “scriptures” out of Hershey’s chocolate bars. We are free to say, “Let me know if there’s anything I can do,” and then do nothing. We have the freedom to select names for our children from the Bible dictionary and to make Easter bunnies from two spools of pink ribbon and a little white felt.  And we’re free to be genuinely nice people in spite of all of our quirks.

Free also to stand for marriage, we might add.

Judge Walker Flouts US Supreme Court Edict - NOM Marriage News 4/14/2011

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Judge Vaughn Walker is in the news again, and it's not a pretty sight for those who care about the rule of law and judicial process.

First, Judge Walker gives an interview in which he acknowledges he's been in a ten-year partnership with a man. No less a legal scholar than John Eastman, former dean of Chapman University School of Law, argues that this heretofore undisclosed relationship should have grave consequences for Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8.

Eastman

Eastman writes: “Walker's admission requires that his decision in the case be vacated. He is either a direct beneficiary of his ruling in the case, or a person with a close-enough personal interest in the case that his impartiality might reasonably have been questioned if the required disclosures had been made.”

Here's a question no one has publicly asked yet: Is Judge Walker married to his partner under California law? Are they in a domestic partnership? Judge Walker has never directly answered this question—and California permits “confidential marriage licenses” so the public would not necessarily have any way to know.

Judge Walker has never even disclosed the name of his partner, or the nature of this partnership, so the litigants in this case still do not know if there are spousal or quasi-spousal potential conflicts of interest either.

Judge Walker does not appear to be a judge with a finely-tuned sense of what judicial ethics require.

The even bigger news story (which has been largely ignored by the mainstream press, natch) is contained in the motion filed by Cooper and Kirk, on behalf of Protect Marriage, which asks the court to order Judge Walker to turn over all copies of the videotapes he made at the trial.

Judge Walker's not-so-blind version of justice

You may recall Judge Walker's unseemly zest during the trial to violate all procedural rules in order to televise the trial, over the objections of the Prop 8 supporters—who demonstrated that televising would have a negative impact on expert witnesses who feared harassment as a result.

The Supreme Court had to slap Walker down in a stinging direct order (PDF) to stop trying to televise the trial.

But Judge Walker decided to continue videotaping the trial anyway, allegedly only for his own personal use.

In fact, he directly promised Prop 8 supporters, who objected and asked him to stop the cameras after the Supreme Court order, that the videotapes would not be used for any purpose other than helping him write his opinion.

Not everybody believed him at the time.

I've heard that at least one witness backed out of testifying when he heard the news that the judge intended to keep on videotaping. “I've been around the block a few times,” this witness said. “I know if there's a videotape, it's likely to get out.”

But who would have expected that Judge Walker himself, just days before he stepped down from the bench, would brazenly violate his own promise—upon which the litigants relied both in testifying and in declining to pursue further legal action—by showing the videotapes during a speech he made, which he knew was being videotaped by C-SPAN?

Note that Judge Walker didn't show, say, the plaintiffs testifying, who wanted to be televised. He singled out an expert witness for Prop 8—one of the very class of people who had expressed concerns about harassment—and broadcast him in an unflattering moment on live, national television.

As I said in a NOM press release, “What more evidence do we need that Vaughn Walker is a rogue judge with little regard for ordinary judicial process and fair play?”

You can read the whole story in the motion up on the NOM blog.

But, for my money, here's the money quote from the able litigator Charles Cooper's motion:

“. . . .[T]he Supreme Court had just stayed his broadcast order, then-Chief Judge Walker insisted on recording the trial proceedings anyway. In doing so over Proponents' objection, Chief Judge Walker assured Proponents on the record that the recording was 'not going to be for purposes of public broadcasting or televising,' but rather 'simply for use in chambers.' In reliance on Chief Judge Walker's assurances, Proponents took no further action to prevent him from recording the trial proceedings. One of Proponents' witnesses also relied on those assurances, and now the recording of a portion of his testimony has been shown by Judge Walker to a large public audience and, in turn, has been disseminated nationally by C-SPAN.”

What kind of judge would break court rules, defy a direct Supreme Court order, and break a direct promise made to litigants in court?

One who clearly does not care much about the ordinary rules of fair play.

We now know for sure what kind of judge and man Vaughn Walker is.

Cuccinelli

Some breaking good news! Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia's attorney general, has just ruled that the proposed “mandatory gay adoption” regulations are illegal.

Do you ever wonder whether elections have consequences?

I first ran into Ken Cuccinelli when he was in a tight race for his state senator's seat in Virginia. They told me he was one of our future stars, and so NOM's PAC gave some money to his race in the crucial last week. He won that race by just 92 votes.

Now he's attorney general of Virginia—a very powerful position when it comes to protecting the rights of people, and of THE people.

Ex-governor Tim Kaine (unwilling to propose these regs while he was governor) left a little time bomb for the incoming administration: He proposed in his last month in office some new regulations which would shut down religious adoption agencies if they do not do same-sex couple adoptions, or even just prefer married couples in ANY way.

Kaine even got his outgoing attorney general to approve these regulations.

They tried to sneak a fast one by the people of Virginia—and today it's clear they lost.

According to the Washington Post, “Cuccinelli's office said in a memo dated Tuesday that the proposal to be considered by the State Board of Social Services as early as next week 'does not comport with applicable state law and public policy.'

“'Therefore the State Board lacks the authority to adopt this proposed language,' wrote Allen Wilson, senior assistant attorney general.”

Thanks to each of you who responded to our urgent call to comment on these mean-spirited regulations which would have mandated that every adoption and foster care agency give children to gay couples, regardless of their religious and moral views, as a condition of being licensed by the state of Virginia.

Both Gov. Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli deserve our thanks for standing up to the press and the bureaucrats in defense of common sense, the rule of law, and religious liberty.

We have tough battles still ahead in New York and Rhode Island—more on that next week.

Meanwhile a lot of you have been asking me about Louis Marinelli. There are some potential litigation issues, so we won't be saying much as we sort those legal issues out.

But here are the basic facts. Louis was not a major NOM strategist. He was not in charge of our summer bus tour. He was never an employee of NOM. He's a young man who, on his own, built a Facebook page with almost 300,000 supporters, called Protect Marriage, One Man, One Woman. He wanted to use that page to help NOM's work. He volunteered to help drive the bus for the NOM bus tour. We eventually paid him as a part-time contractor to help with internet outreach. Last Friday, he abruptly announced he was now pro-gay-marriage and shut down the Facebook page.

I said on our blog that we wish him well, and personally I do!

Meanwhile can you do me a favor? We have a new Facebook page up. Can you go there and “like” it?

Please Like our new Facebook page and please share it with your friends!

Thanks! And pass along a request to your Facebook friends, too!

God bless you, and thank you for your courage and your decency.

I'm grateful for your support!

Semper fi,

Brian brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

PS: In the fight for marriage, every bit of help counts. NOM serves to amplify your voice so you can be heard in the corridors of power, and in order to do that, we need your help. Whether you can give $15 or $150, or a monthly donation of just $10, know that every dollar makes a difference in getting your voice heard.

In Focus: Religious clubs face discrimination, even on public campuses

Deseret News in Utah reports:

In the spring of 2004, Dina Haddad went to an administrator at Hastings, a law school in San Francisco, to get approval for a new campus club. Haddad was the vice president of the Hastings chapter of the Christian Legal Society — a national group of Christian lawyers, judges and law students that professed to "proclaim, love and serve Jesus Christ through the study and practice of law." Haddad wanted CLS to get recognized by Hastings as an official student organization. But when she met with the school's director of student services she was handed a copy of the university's nondiscrimination policy. The message was clear: Christian groups like CLS weren't welcome on campus.

That simple encounter was the beginning of a classic case of conflict between a university's nondiscrimination policies and a student religious group's freedom to define itself.

Six years later, on June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The ruling gave public universities an almost bulletproof way to apply nondiscrimination policies that could force religious student groups on campus to admit not only gay students, but atheists and other people who have different religious views. But adopting the same policy as Hastings and enforcing it may have the effect of marginalizing some groups such as evangelicals and Orthodox Jewish congregations.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent, called the majority decision of the court "a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country."

RI Bishop Tobin says Church open to reciprocal benefits, but opposes redefining marriage

GoLocalProv believes it has discovered a new strain of Catholic teaching. Sigh. Not all rights and benefits are marital benefits, and Catholic Church leaders have always been willing to find ways to provide some practical benefits that do not compromise marriage or moral teachings on sex. Reciprocal beneficiaries was pioneered, with the consent of the Catholic church there, in Hawaii. It's not news, but it is true:

In an exclusive interview, Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin said the Church is not opposed to granting some benefits and rights to gay couples—as long as the term marriage is not used.

His statement—which was couched in caveats—nonetheless indicates a flexibility in the Church’s position that has previously been overlooked in the polarizing debate over gay marriage in Rhode Island.

“The legislation we would support is what is often called ‘reciprocal benefits,’” Tobin told GoLocalProv. “It does not use marriage as a reference point. It would grant some legal benefits [and] some legal rights to two people who have some kind of established relationship without any particular reference to marriage. So it could be someone and their grandfather. Could be two cousins. Could be two elderly sisters.”

Such a bill was filed in the House in early March. The bill, sponsored by Rep Peter Petrarca, D- Lincoln, would grant about half a dozen rights and benefits to any two unmarried people, regardless of sexual orientation. If passed, it would allow one partner to make medical decisions for another, have a say over the burial and disposition of their remains, and the right to inherit property if the other partner dies.

Tobin declined to elaborate on exactly which legal benefits and rights he thought unmarried couples should have—saying that’s a question for legal experts. “People deserve human rights whether or not they’re gay,” Tobin said. “Now the reciprocal benefits [bill] recognizes some rights and some privileges irrespective of their orientation and that’s the key I think.”

Tobin said he would not go as far as supporting civil unions, saying the church is as steadfastly opposed to civil unions as it is to gay marriage.

Breaking News: Virginia AG Cuccinelli Advises Proposed Adoption Regs Illegal

From the Washington Post:

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II has advised a state board that it cannot impose new regulations that some argue would for the first time allow gay couples to adopt children in Virginia.

Cuccinelli’s office said in a memo dated Tuesday that the proposal to be considered by the State Board of Social Services as early as next week “does not comport with applicable state law and public policy.”

“Therefore the State Board lacks the authority to adopt this proposed language,’’ wrote Allen Wilson, senior assistant attorney general.

... “It was a correct decision in my judgment,’’ [Del. Robert G. Marshall] said. “The General Assembly has not made sexual orientation a protected class. This will be welcome news to a lot of faith- based adoption agencies.”

Twin Lessons: Have More Kids. Pay Less Attention to Them.

Bryan Caplan is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University, the author of “Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think” and a father of twins. He writes in the Wall Street Journal:

But twin research has another far more amazing lesson: With a few exceptions, the effect of parenting on adult outcomes ranges from small to zero.Parents change kids in many ways; the catch is that the changes fade out as kids grow up.  By adulthood, identical twins aren’t slightly more similar than fraternal twins; they’re much more similar.  And when identical twins are raised apart, they’re often just as similar as they are when they’re raised together.

... The obvious lesson to draw is that parents should lighten up.  I call it “Serenity Parenting”: Parents need the serenity to accept the things they cannot change, the courage to change the things they can, and (thank you twin research) the wisdom to know the difference.

... Yet eventually I noticed that twin research had another, far less obvious lesson for parents: Have more kids. When you ask high-effort parents if they want another child, the thought often frightens them. They’re already tired and stressed from the kids they’ve got; how could they endure the sacrifices required to raise one more? I reversed this argument. Others’ belief in the power of nurture made them reluctant to have more kids.  My disbelief in the power of nurture, by the same logic, made me eager to have more kids.

Parents who don’t take twin research seriously are “overcharging” themselves for every child—not financially, but emotionally. The blatant lesson of twin research is to stop overcharging yourself. Its subtle lesson is to rethink the number of children you want to have.

Ed Whelan on Vaughn Walker’s Continuing Defiance on Prop 8 Trial Recordings

Ed Whelan is the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He writes in NRO's Bench Memos:

One of the clear early signs of former district judge Vaughn Walker’s determined malfeasance in the anti-Prop 8 case was his resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in furtherance of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate. Walker’s escapade was blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality:

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.

Walker ended up recording the trial proceedings but, assuring Prop 8 proponents that he was doing so only for his own use in deciding the case, he ordered the video recording of the trial to be placed under seal.

But, believe it or not, Walker himself recently publicly displayed and broadcast a portion of the video recording—containing cross-examination of one of proponents’ witnesses—notwithstanding that he thereby violated his own order and his court’s local rules, contravened the policies of the Judicial Conference of the United States and of the Ninth Circuit, and thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court.

Related: NOM Responds to News Judge Walker Violated Judicial Rules, Released Video in Defiance of Supreme Court