Knight: Activist Judges Out to Destroy Marriage at All Costs
by Bill Fancher
March 24, 2005
(AgapePress) - Activist judges legislating from the bench are ignoring history in order to push an agenda, says an official with a Washington, DC-based family group. The result, he says, is "lunatic" decisions.
A pro-family advocate with the Culture and Family Institute (CFI) says activist judges consistently turn their backs on the lessons of history in making their decisions. A recent case in point, says Bob Knight, is when two activist judges on opposite coasts negated their respective state's laws banning same-sex "marriage." In doing so, he says, those judges ignored tradition and statistical studies.
Bob Knight | |
Knight says that is typical of activist judges. "Liberals have always had anti-family policies, from abortion to promoting pornography and homosexuality," he says. "It all fits one scheme, which is to say that God's plan for sex within marriage is no longer applicable -- in fact, wherever it is applicable, it produces families that get in the way of our great agenda."The CFI director contends that in pushing their own agenda, liberal judges sacrifice everything else.
"I'm not surprised to see liberal judges throw out the law, throw out precedence, throw out history, and throw out common sense in trying to put destructive laws on the books or take good laws off in order to destroy marriage," he states.
Knight says ignoring the vast amount of data available in order to decide an issue leads to "lunatic" decisions. And such judicial decisions, according to many pro-family groups, is the reason why traditional marriage needs to be protected by law.
The Marriage Protection Act currently making its way through Congress would shield states from having their bans on homosexual marriage overturned by activist judges. But Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council sees the Act as merely a temporary "band-aid" solution. He wants more permanent protection for marriage.
"Ultimately, we must have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects the institution of marriage from activist judges, rogue mayors, and others who would impose upon the American people a definition of marriage which is inconsistent with history, inconsistent with tradition, and inconsistent with the biblical instruction that we've been given," the FRC president says.
In 2004, more than a dozen states voted to ban same-sex marriage by amending their state constitution. As many as nine more could follow suit over the next two years -- the soonest being Kansas, where the measure goes before voters in April. Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in only one state: Massachusetts. Voters in that state could also possibly vote on a constitutional ban by the end of 2006.
Bill Fancher, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
