Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
My statement was moot, given that the decision didn't declare a particular part of the california constitution, unconstitutional.
A little bit different than what started this discussion which made me think that a Colorado Judge had voided a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional
"In Colorado a few years back an amendment to the Colorado Constitution was thrown out by a judge after it was approved by vote"
One more time: "Let's make law from the bench!". This will go to the California Supreme Court....eventually.
The judge is following the ABA model divorce code which states in part that marriage is only for adults and that child production or children are an accessory to marriage.
IOW only breeders produce children and breeding children is not part of the ABA "vision" of marriage.
This is nothing more than trying to make marriage based on orgasm not production of children.
The judge is a blatent liar. There is no other term. The judge simply made up out of thin air a ruling that would fit the desired result regardless of law, president, or even common sense.
Note, there IS NO NEED FOR RELIGION to protect marriage. This judge obviously hates religion and is using that as an excuse to promote homosexual behavior.
They actually can do that as long as they claim it violates the federal constitution in some way. Suppose a state passes a referendum and amends the state constitution to allow slavery, or confiscation of your firearms, or changing the governorship into a dukedom and making it a hereditory office, or making Islam the state religion -- then would you complain that the judge found the amendment to the state constitution unconstitutional (under the federal constitution)?
You are incorrect. Marriage has to be an institutional part of the law because it is the institution which promotes the formation of the next generation.
Society rewards the institution not the individual. Homosexual behavior has zero chance of producing or raising a next generation in a mother/father environment.
Homsoexual behavior is ONLY about recreational sex, nothing else. The law has never considered or involved itself in "love."
Since the government took over the hodgepodge of do it yourself marriage recording, the objective has always been to protect the next generation. Religious marriage is not relevant to the law. Only that the marriage was legally recorded. Religion in marriage is as irrelevant as love in the eyes of the law.
Unfortunatly you have fallen for the homo-propaganda talking point that "religion" is the reason to oppose civil unions or homosexual marriage, it is not. There have very good and very sound non-religious legal reasons to oppose homosexual marriage in any derivation.
That it violated the federal constitution.
No, it will be voted on, then the judges can't touch it.
The degenerates keep digging themselves a deeper ditch.
I agree. we live in the Best State! Other than our Moronic Lib Politicians and our immigration problem we have the "Shiza" state to reside in.
They lack nothing that can't be remedied by signing a contract and power of attorney between themselves.
actually it can because there is a move to lower the age of consent. It is part of the HRC efforts.
yup...it is a shame that most people out there don't really know about the WHOLE state....they would see that the media driven image while true on some fronts does not at all encompass the majority of areas. Unfortunately, the bad news is all that you get.......how is SD, having the fabulous weather like we are in the Bay Area?......had a great chat with a Rancho Bernardo FReeper yesterday.........
Not the case. Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal privilege in court testimony....lots of things can't be secured without marriage or at least a civil union. And it depends on the state. Virginia makes even private contracts between gays for marriage-like arrangements void.
On the other side one could argue that too many legislatures are attempting to enact unconstitutional laws.
The fringe homosexual movement-and their liberal enablers-have an insatiable greed, which does not countenance forbearance of any sort.
They simply do not have the patience to allow each radical state bench to distort the law, in order to suit their radical attempts at mass social engineering.
Trust me, when DOMA is challenged in the federal courts-and it will be-it will be overturned.
Then, those of us who didn't make a strenuous effort to lobby the U.S. Senate on this issue will be left with many regrets.
Laughably stupid, yet still very dangerous.
This is a county judge. It's not a state or federal ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.