Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FNC: California law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional
Fox News | March 14, 2005

Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War

Breaking...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 1996; aba; adoption; amendment; behavior; children; dma; doma; father; federal; fma; gaymarriage; glsen; homosexualagenda; hrc; lamda; legal; marriage; mother; orgasm; pedophile; pflag; ruling; samesexmarriage; sex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-438 last
Comment #421 Removed by Moderator

To: blueshades

Nobody is born with the fetish of homosexual behivior

The law has NEVER had a love test for marriage.

The homosexual relationships are only about recreational sex. Nothing else. Homosexuality is irrelevent to society, it serves no function other than individual sexual gratification.

Marriage is about the future of society. Homosexual have no future other than recruitment.


422 posted on 03/15/2005 12:11:14 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Rush just reported the MSM is saying this judge is a republican.

I don't know if Kramer is a republican but republican governor Pete Wilson (1991-1999) appointed him in December 1996. I have also heard that Kramer is supposedly a Catholic. As a Catholic myself, I would have either decided the case in the opposite or recused myself. If he is a Catholic he is a lost Catholic in my opinion.

423 posted on 03/15/2005 12:43:38 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

I wonder if there is such a think as a CINO? Catholic in name only. (ala RINO)

Actually religion would have nothing to do with this. The law alone is dead agains what this judge did. I think a little digging will reveal this judge to be an adherent to the ABA model divorce code which has included homosexual marriage.


424 posted on 03/15/2005 1:08:47 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: D-Generation X
gays will always live sick lifestyles because they are sick themselves.

You are right, they dress it up and call what they want but it is still unnatural and sick.

425 posted on 03/15/2005 1:14:09 PM PST by jerri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: jerri

The law has no love test. This judge has basically provided a recreational sex test. If two men or two women want to manipulate each other's genitals then they now have sufficient standing to be married. No children or even a hint of producing children from the sexual relations, just soddomy.

Which explains why homosexuals are propagandizing their effort as feeeeeeelings and looooooooooove. Legal hogwash.
Any lawyer who argues that with a straight face should have his or her license revoked.


426 posted on 03/15/2005 1:27:25 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I wonder if there is such a think as a CINO? Catholic in name only. (ala RINO)

LOL -yes there are. Kerry & Kennedy are two examples. They tend to be liberal in politics and or doctrine and are also called cafeteria Catholics.

427 posted on 03/15/2005 1:34:17 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The law alone is dead agains what this judge did. I think a little digging will reveal this judge to be an adherent to the ABA model divorce code which has included homosexual marriage.

off topic:

I know that you are quite interested in matters involving the ABA model divorce code; I don't know if you are aware of this but what do you think of this pending Catholic challenge to convention that cites Church teaching and acceptance of Catholic doctrine regarding marriage as a defacto prenuptial agreement. From Mary's Advocates - Defending Families Against Forced No-Fault Divorce?

Ohio defendant's challenge to forced divorce.

428 posted on 03/15/2005 1:45:04 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

Comment #429 Removed by Moderator

To: Avenger

Now that's a great idea......never thought of it. It sure would be helpful for those that do care for elderly parents or siblings.


430 posted on 03/15/2005 5:11:36 PM PST by IvySterling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Absolutely. Come up to Canada, namely the province of Quebec. 90% of the population claims to be 'Catholic', but the political and cultural trends do NOT back that up:

-75% support gay marriage there (versus 35% in the rest of Canada
-Over 70% support abortion there
-Church attendance lower than anywhere else in the Western world
-The US is overall hated there (as well, 40% there believe there should be NO military)
-More common-law relationships than anywhere else in North America - by far


431 posted on 03/15/2005 5:21:24 PM PST by Heartofsong83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War

They are nimcompoops on the simple basis that anyone can get into a contract with anyone else. There is not the question. The question is the idea of a special commitment for child rearing and nation building, beyond the lives of individuals, through marriage. There is no such commitment existing in "crime scene" like evidence between people of the same sex. It is not their functions. Their "commitments" is purely carnal in basis.

Gay marriage is treason, pure and simple, and to make that constitutional is next to kin to legal terrorism.


432 posted on 03/15/2005 5:52:43 PM PST by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dreadful
Untill you walk a mile in my shoes or read my mind you have no right to say whether i (or any homosexual) loves their mate

LOL -depraved colon exploration provides insight into the meaning of love?

433 posted on 03/15/2005 9:36:26 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Dreadful

No one can read your mind, Dreadful. Do you see gay people as being any different from straight people?

Do you believe that being gay is about as significant as, say, being from Arizona?

Gays are different, Dreadful. That's why they have a scientific name and colloquial names, ie gay, to define them differently from straight people, right, Dreadful?

It's not "who" you are that matters here, it's "what" you are. And you can't help that, nor can you change the definition and what it stands for.

Civil rights legislation has allowed gays to have the openness they never had before. Gays may openly operate in our society as equals and without shame or (mostly) ill will. That is a terrific improvement, and exactly due to the gay movement.

But being equal doesn't mean you're the same. You never will be the same. You know that. And it's that immutable difference that will keep gays outside the institution of marriage, probably forever.

Work for viable civil unions. Call yourselves "Life Partners" or something, wear the signifying rings, etc.
You'll be respected that way every bit as much as you are now (except for the marriage activism stuff, which causes resentment), you WILL be "equal" to married people. You just won't be the same.

You aren't, you know.





434 posted on 03/16/2005 2:36:42 AM PST by Randy Papadoo (Not going so good? Just kick somebody's a$$. You'll feel a lot better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

bump to respond later


435 posted on 03/16/2005 3:00:00 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Dreadful
"You are right, they dress it up and call what they want but it is still unnatural and sick."

Tell me where in the above sentence it says anything about reading your mind. If you are offended by the truth that is your problem.

436 posted on 03/16/2005 4:22:20 PM PST by jerri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I'm a little late on this because I've been kinda tied up elsewhere, but this section from Article VI of the Constitution should answer your question:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

437 posted on 03/22/2005 2:34:34 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Thanks, I had forgotten the phrase, "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."
438 posted on 03/22/2005 3:05:06 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-438 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson