Prop 8 judge called 'tyrannical activist devoted to satisfying himself' Homosexual told state to ignore constitutional definition of marriage

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

SAN FRANCISCO - AUGUST 04: Members of the group The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence attend a rally to celebrate the ruling to overturn Proposition 8 August 4, 2010 in San Francisco, California. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker announced his ruling to overturn Proposition 8 finding it unconstitutional. The voter approved measure denies same-sex couples the right to marry in the State of California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The federal judge in California who said gender has no place in marriage and told the state to violate its own constitutional restriction of marriage to one man and one woman is being called "a tyrannical judicial activist devoted to satisfying himself."

The statement came today from Randy Thomasson of the family-advocate SaveCalifornia.com after Judge Vaughn Walker ruled same-sex marriages can resume in California Aug. 18.

He earlier issued an opinion that it was unconstitutional to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and became the target of an impeachment campaign.

'Nullification' – Just say no! Rediscover historic doctrine of resistance to fight 21st–century federal tyranny

Walker had ignored the terse warning in state Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter's dissenting opinion in the 2008 case affirming same-sex marriage. Baxter warned of the "legal jujitsu" required to establish same-sex marriage just a few months before California voters passed Proposition 8 and amended the constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

(Story continues below)



"The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy," Baxter warned in his dissent. "Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter wrote. That state court decision was overturned by voters a few months later.

Thomasson said the warning has been sounded.

"Californians and Americans are waking up to the awful realization that the written Constitution may have no authority, oaths of office might be meaningless, and our republic is severely threatened by tyrannical judges and politicians. Bolstered by the broken oaths and homosexual 'marriage' demands of Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Vaughn Walker has proven himself to be a tyrannical judicial activist devoted to satisfying himself, rather than being a faithful, duty-bound supporter and defender of the written Constitution."

He continued, "Walker knows that his ruling will be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and could be overturned, yet he seems to care little about a peaceful process. By demanding that homosexual 'marriages' begin Aug. 18, Walker is demanding his own way, despite normal legal processes, despite his oath of office, and despite the written words and contextual origins of the U.S. Constitution. If these were the days of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, federal marshals would arrest and imprison Vaughn Walker as a traitor and domestic enemy of the United States Constitution."

According to Staff Counsel Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the key organizations arguing on behalf of traditional marriage advocates ProtectMarriage.com, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being asked immediately for a stay of Walker's order.

"This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld. It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard. If the trial court's decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending," he said.

Charles Cooper, the lead counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, said, "The decision whether to redefine marriage is for the people themselves to make, not a single district court judge, especially without appellate scrutiny."

Andrew Pugno, ProtectMarriage.com's general counsel, said Walker's announcement reveals "the court is determined to impose same-sex 'marriage' on California, whether we like it or not."

The ADF noted some of Walker's far-reaching conclusions that opined marriage could not be limited to one man and one woman:

* "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."

* "Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."

* "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment."

* "The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes."

* "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."

* "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples."

Liberty Counsel called the ruling "outrageous."

"This is a classic example of radical individualism and judicial activism. Judge Walker obviously has not learned the lesson of 2008, when the California Supreme Court refused to stay its decision on marriage. That decision was reversed in short order, but it caused a huge disruption," said chief Mathew Staver.

Officials with Advocates for Faith and Freedom said the dispute is "far from resolved."

The American Family Association promptly launched an action alert to its several million supporters calling for the impeachment of Walker.

The alert asks supporters to contact their members of Congress and demand his removal.

"What you have here is a federal judge using the power of his position to legitimize what is sexually aberrant behavior," Bryan Fischer, an analyst for the organization, told WND. "He's trampling on the will of 7 million voters in California. It's just a gross breach of his judicial responsibility.

"We think of it as an expression of judicial tyranny, judicial activism on steroids," he said.

The CIA turns to Hollywood for answers?? - Countdown to Zero, a Participant Media flick about the escalating nuclear arms crisis.

Typically, the CIA is all about black ops, classified information and secrecy.

But here's something POLITICO has uncovered: Late last month, the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center hosted a joint screening of the documentary Countdown to Zero, a Participant Media flick about the escalating nuclear arms crisis.

The audience was standing-room only and incuded more than 500 people, including high-level agency reps and analysts who follow nuclear terrorism and counterproliferation issues from the CIA and NCTC.

After the screening, Jeff Skoll, the founder of Participant Media and the film's producer, held a Q-and-A session.

The film has made the Beltway rounds. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) held a screening of the flick and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also screened the film while traveling back from Mexico.

Putting Government First by Patrick J. Buchanan

Where a man's purse is, there his heart will be also.

If you would know where the heart of the Obama party is today, consider. In the dog days of August, with temperatures in D.C. rising above 100, Nancy Pelosi called the House back to Washington to enact legislation that could not wait until September.

Purpose: Vote $26 billion to prevent layoffs of state, municipal and county employees whose own governments had decided they had to be let go if they were to meet their constitutional duty to balance their books.

Workers their own governments thought expendable, Congress decided were so essential, it borrowed another 26 thousand million dollars from China to keep them on state and local payrolls.

A nation whose national debt is approaching the size of its gross national product, that goes abroad to borrow money to keep non-essential workers on government payroll is a nation on the way down and out.

And anyone who thinks this Obama party is ever going to cull the armies of tens of millions of government workers or scores of millions of government beneficiaries to put America's house in order is deluding himself.

As long as this Congress and White House remain in power, a U.S. default on its national debt is inevitable. The only question is when.

Nor is this the first time the Obama administration has rushed to save workers whom their own state, city and county governments were prepared to let go. Among the reasons the $800 billion stimulus failed is that so little of it was directed to firing up the locomotive of the economy, the private sector, and so much of it was spent to ensure that government workers did not have to share in the national sacrifice.

Why Pelosi & Co felt compelled to return to D.C., to ensure that state and local government payrolls were not pared, is not hard to understand.

Which party does the American Federation of Teachers; the National Education Association; and the American Federation of State, Municipal and County Employees usually contribute to, work for, vote for? At which of the two party conventions are teachers and government employees hugely over-represented?

Consider, too, the states deepest in debt and facing the largest cuts in employee ranks, pay and benefits: California, Illinois, New York.

In these states, public employees earn at least $10,000 per year more in pay and benefits than the average America worker, who is bailing them out.

Hence, we have a situation where private sector workers in Middle America are being taxed, their children being driven ever deeper into debt to China, so government employees who have greater job security than they do, and earn more in pay and benefits than they will ever earn, can stay in Fat City.

And folks wonder why so many Americans detest government.

In the same week Congress came back to prevent AFSCME from taking a haircut, the Wall Street Journal reported that, in 2009, only three of 52 metro areas with over 1 million in population saw "net earnings and the broader measure of personal income both rise."

Are you surprised to learn Washington, D.C., was among the three?

That same day, USA Today had a startling report on how, during the last decade, U.S. Government workers, like Wall Street bankers, left their fellow Americans in the dust.

"Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

"Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation. ... The Federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year."

Remarkable. U.S. government workers, who enjoy the greatest job security of any Americans, now earn twice as much in pay and benefits as the average American. This is not the D.C. some of us grew up in.

Nor is this all Obama's doing. For most of the fat years of the federal work force came while Washington was being run by a Congress of Big-Government Conservatives and a White House of Bush-Cheney Republicans.

No wonder the tea party is targeting both parties.

Nevertheless, it is impossible to believe that the Obamaites, who intervened twice and massively with bailouts to prevent minor layoffs of local and state government employees, have the stomach to do the major surgery needed to cut the federal monolith down to size.

For the vast majority of the tens of millions of government workers vote Democratic, as do the vast majority of the scores of millions of beneficiaries of federal, state and local programs.

What Pelosi & Co. were saying with that $26 billion bailout this week is, "We are going to protect our own."

Which is why either Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co. go, or we are gone.

Mid-Summer Madness by Oliver North

Atlanta, GA – It has to be the heat. A severe outbreak of Global Warming Disorder (GWD) among Washington’s elite is the only possible explanation for the strange behavior of so many power brokers.

Temperatures in Washington were so high this week that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, perhaps suffering from dehydration, had a brief moment of lucid candor. During an interview with “The Hill” newspaper, Mr. Gibbs took a page from Sean Hannity’s playbook and castigated the “professional left” for criticizing Mr. Obama’s handling of the war in Afghanistan and his unfulfilled pledge to close the Guantanamo terrorist detention facility. “I hear,” said Mr. Gibbs, “these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested. I mean it’s crazy.”

Unfortunately Mr. Gibbs did not clarify whether he believes there is some connection between drug use and mental instability. He did however note what it will take to bring Mr. Obama’s backers back into the fold: “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon.”

This is of course the same Robert Gibbs who famously forecast during last month’s record-breaking heat wave, “there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control” of the House of Representative in the November elections. Understandably irritated by the prospect of losing her perks and privileges, Speaker Nancy Pelosi downplayed Mr. Gibbs efforts to keep the Democrat base home from the polls and told CNN: “I don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about what the president’s employees say about one thing or another.”

Apparently uncertain about how effective these comments might be at alienating fellow Democrats, high temperatures in Nevada forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to take matters into his own hands – or mouth. During a campaign event in Las Vegas this week, the liberal icon boldly told supporters, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?” Nope.
Cartoon courtesy of Brett Noel

Mr. Reid’s racial slur might have been excused as a case of GWD induced heatstroke except someone remembered the Majority Leader saying in 2008 that Mr. Obama benefited from his “light-skinned” appearance and his ability to turn his “Negro dialect” on and off. Since making his most recent bigoted comment, Senator Reid has lost the endorsement of the National Rifle Association and been introduced to Congressional Republican colleagues: Senator Mel Martinez; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln & Mario Diaz-Balart and U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio. He has also been reminded that the slogan, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” really isn’t true. It’s just heated rhetoric.

There has been a lot of that on Capitol Hill this week even though Congress is supposedly in recess. Both the House and Senate had to come back to the sweltering swamp this week to vote on unfinished business. In their haste to get out of the broiling temps, nobody noticed a $600-million “border security bill,” approved first in the Senate, and then by the House, actually violated procedures mandated by Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” Just blame it on the heat.

Thankfully, the “Special Session” was a great opportunity for Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), the venerable legislator facing 13 ethics charges. He braved stifling temperatures to stroll into the well of the House of Representatives and exercise a “point of personal privilege.” After telling his cronies, “I am not going away. I am here,” they applauded. Perhaps it was too hot for those who were clapping to have read the most recent polls showing 78 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing.

Mr. Rangel and his colleague, Rep. Maxine Waters – also facing corruption charges – have both asked for public hearings in September. Perhaps things will have cooled off in Washington by then.

At least the pressure-cooker temps aren’t bothering the First Lady. Mrs. Obama – and a bevy of pals – escaped Potomac Fever and growing lines of unemployed Americans by taking a delightful summer sojourn in Spain. The White House, ever sensitive to photos of Mrs. Obama sight-seeing with European royalty while Americans can’t afford to run their air conditioners, was quick to point out that the First Fam will be taking “a real vacation” later this month – at Martha’s Vineyard. Just like the rest of us.

Those of us who cannot afford to jet-set around Europe or hobnob with the rich and famous in the style of the Kennedys do have an outlet: the Summer Freedom Concerts with Sean Hannity. Here in Atlanta – despite a deeply troubled economy, stifling heat and being in the epicenter of the Jane Fonda Network – thousands of our countrymen have turned out to hear some great patriotic music and support our troops. For those who think it’s hot here – it was 107 degrees in Helmand Province today. And over there, Americans go to work in flak jackets and helmets.

Lt. Col. North (Ret.) is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of the FOX News/Regnery books, "War Stories: Operation Iraqi Freedom," "War Stories II: Heroism in the Pacific" and "War Stories III: The Heroes Who Defeated Hitler." Lt. North hosts "War Stories Investigates: Drugs, Money and Narco-Terror" Saturday, Aug. 22, at 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. EDT on Fox News Channel.

Sacrilege at Ground Zero by Charles Krauthammer

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's early '90s proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition fearing vulgarization of the Civil War (and wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place, it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation." Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message, or show "special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely, that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there's no guarantee this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege.

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of good will would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, "I'm not a politician. ... The issue of terrorism is a very complex question."

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.

Mr. Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Our Founding fathers and the The 13th Star

Within The Symbol

WITHIN THE SYMBOL OF THE THIRTEEN STAR FLAG lies the meaning we seek to convey -- that ours was once a Republic born of ingenious political philosophy and a natural hunger for liberty. The greatest statesmen our nation has produced, before or since, dedicated their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the establishment of a new kind of government. They formed for posterity a system which, if preserved, would have done more to secure the happiness and prosperity of its citizens than any in the modern world. They correctly perceived that the attendant rights of liberty are reposed not in governments but in individuals -- that individuals are so endowed by their Creator. The proper role of government is not to grant that which it can never possess, but to protect that which it has so often tread upon. Our founders knew well that a government of men would not, in fact could not, exercise an enduring self restraint. Further -- they recognized what has been aptly termed the internal hydraulic pressure within governments to expand the boundaries of their own power. Restraint, they therefore expressly imposed. But such restraints are effective only so long as we adhere to their design. Increasingly, we fail to do so, and our Republic wanes as if by a wasting disease.

The Threat of Progressivism

The greatest threat to the American Republic is currently the muddled mass of confused and foreign-born ideologies operating under the rubric of progressivism. These are the acolytes of Environmentalism, Marxism, Globalism, and the like. They favor the redistribution of wealth; out from the hands that produce it, into the gaping mouths that cry the loudest. They view with contempt not only the Republic as it stands, but the Republic as it was and the memory of men that spent treasure and blood to establish it. These are the adherents of the philosophy of the "Other," first enunciated by the German philosopher Hegel -- demonstrably the greatest fraud in the history of philosophy. They loudly proclaim that America's success is the sum total of a series of racist genocides, thefts and other high crimes, without the victims of which the Republic could not stand. Our greatest flaw, they tell us, is the small-minded, myopic and violent way we choose to view the rest of the world -- their exalted Other. We hate the Other, they tell us, because the feeble-minded fear what they do not understand. We have failed to embrace the Other because, blinded by our wanton pursuit of self-interested greed, we have failed to bathe in their enlightened radiance. We have failed to see the obvious truths they espouse.

We reject these views in their entirety. Further, we consider them anathema. We agree with the founders that the property rights of individuals are sacrosanct and well worth the bloodied soil by which they were purchased. We neither hate nor fear the progressive's Other. We simply believe axiomatically that to such Other we owe nothing. For far longer than our Republic has existed there have been those among us that have the capacity to accurately judge the character of their fellows by looking them in the eye. In the eye of this Other we have seen one undeniable fact -- the Other intends to feed his own children. He does not intend to feed ours. For this he is not to be much condemned, but neither is he the proper object of our guilt, our charity, or our productive efforts. In our eyes, worship at the temple of the Other amounts to little more than national self-loathing. To sacrifice at the altar of the Other is to burn offerings, not for some amorphous greater good, but for The Abyss itself. And The Abyss can never be sated. In such folly we will not participate.

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

-George Washington

That is not to say, respecting government, that one form is equal to the next. Some are surely more dangerous than others. Our Founding Fathers knew well the dangers posed to free men by government. Their every effort was to limit that threat by withholding from government all but the most necessary of public powers. They sought to further limit those dangers by the express enumeration of sectors of liberty into which government may not tread. These limitations are evinced most clearly, though not solely, by the language and structure of The Constitution of the United States. For this reason we have made copies of it available to our customers. Whether it be ours or any other proper copy -- please do read and re-read it.

Sadly, despite our Fathers' worthy effort, our Republic's current political apparatus seems to us a wholly inadequate means by which to meet the waxing threat of progressivism and socialist ideologies that seek to redefine the very foundation of the American Citizen. The current GOP seems an anemic remedy to the mounting damage being done by the incumbent DNC. Our future, whatsoever form it will take, may yet be determined by our own action. For our part, we advocate turning back to our American roots -- back to our traditions, our heritage, our culture, and faith in Our Creator. There may we find a cure for what ails us all.

Breastfeeding adult men sparks holy war 'Fatwa-issuing thugs give orders, pass judgment, make decisions'

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The Islamic population in the Middle East has been caught up in a new war – but they are their own enemies in the fight over a "fatwa" that authorizes the breastfeeding of adult men.

"The fatwa-issuing thugs give orders, pass judgment, and make decisions: love is forbidden; looking [at a man] is a sin; expressions of love are contemptible – [but] as for breastfeeding, that is permissible, permissible, permissible," wrote Nadine Al-Budair, a presenter for the U.S. Arabic-language television station Al-Hurra.

The dispute has been monitored by the Middle East Media Research Institute, which has compiled a history of the situation, and added to it some comments from contemporary Muslims interests.

This stunning analysis exposes Western readers to the traditions of Islam – and predicts the end times may not be that far away. Get "The Islamic Antichrist: The Shocking Truth About the Real Nature of the Beast"

The issue first arose in Egypt in May 2007 when a "fatwa" – an Islamic religious decree – was issued from "Izzat" Atiyya, who used to be chief of the Hadith Department at Al-Azhar University. He permitted a woman to breastfeed a man with whom she must work in private, a result that MEMRI reported led to Atiyya's dismissal from his school position.


The dispute returned to headlines just a few weeks ago when Sheikh Abd Al-Muhsin Al-Obikan, in the Saudi Justice Ministry, issued a "fatwa" allowing the breastfeeding of adults.

MEMRI documents how the rules are aimed at "enabling an unrelated man and woman to be seclude in the same room, a situation which Islam considers forbidden gender mixing."

The report explained that the fatwas regarding breastfeeding suggest it creates "a bond of kinship between the man and woman … thus making it acceptable for them to be together in seclusion."

The latest edict "created a stir in Saudi Arabia and in the Arab media at large, arousing a wave of criticism from clerics and columnists alike," MEMRI reported.

For example, articles in the daily Al-Riyadh argued "only moral education could address the issue of male and female seclusion" and there should even be a body of authorities in Islam "that would prevent the issuing of strange fatwas such as these."

The MEMRI report said Saudi Sheikh Abd Al-Aziz Bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh condemned the idea as contradicting Islamic law and ruled that breastfeeding is for children under the age of 2.

Reported MEMRI, "Similarly, Dr. Muhammad Al-Nujeimi, a civics professor and member of the Islamic law faculty at King Fahd University, called on Al-Obikan to rescind his ruling, as 'adult breastfeeding is not [a way to turn a man into the woman's mahram] and whoever permits it is wide of the truth...'"

Further, a recent sermon from Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam of the Al-Harram Mosque in Mecca, denounced the fatwa, MEMRI reported.

Amidst the arguments over the ideas, Al-Obikan renewed his statements, explaining his ruling is based on Islamic religious law, Shariah.

And MEMRI reported Sheikh Dr. Saleh Al-Sadlan, professor at the Imam Mohammad Bin Saud Islamic University, was supportive of Al-Obikan's position.

"He said the fatwa should not be regarded with disdain, as it is in line with the Sunna and the opinions of numerous clerics. Al-Sadlan also said that since the fatwa seems strange to the public, it behooves the mufti or the Senior Clerics Council – the Saudi Arabia's supreme religious authority – to examine the fatwa and issue their endorsement of it."

Another argument was raised by Sheikh Ahmad Al-Hashem, of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Endowments, who said the mother's milk belongs not to her, but her husband.

It all was too much for Al-Watan columnist Halima Muzaffar.

"We must do away with this phobia of gender mixing," wrote the columnist, who was joined in sentiment by Layla Ahmad Al-Ahdab. Also writing in the Al-Watan, Al-Ahdab said, "How long with the 'gender mixing phobia' serve as a source for fatwas that cause the world to laugh at us?"