No, it will be voted on, then the judges can't touch it.
The degenerates keep digging themselves a deeper ditch.
A lowly city/county judge? His ruling will most definately be overturned as it moves higher up the chain.
It just goes to show that the will of the people can be shot down by the courts. It's no longer, "For the People, by the People" it's more like "For the People, By the Courts!"
But of course. Nobody can be surprised at this. It's the way things work. 10 million people vote one way, a single judge says something else and the judges win every time because the ten miilion people let them.
More BS from the land of fruits and nuts...
I'm not surprised, and the sooner the public realizes that passing these amendments banning gay marriage are not going to prevent judges from overstepping their authority the better.
This is the main reason I support a constitutional amendment, though obviously the judges have taken to disobeying the constitution as they see fit as well.
Best solution is to limit the power of the judiciary AND start impeaching judges that do not uphold their oath.
PLEASE PLEASE SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ME: How can someone who wants a constitutional amendment making only opposite-sex marriage legal take issue with judges who find that it is presently unconstitutional to ban same-sex people from marrying?
(P.S. I been having problems with this but no one answers me logically, they just saw how they feel about it. What I want to know is how the two things above can be logically consistent.)
Thanks. There gotta be some lawyers around to take this one.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
One judge trying to subvert and overturn democracy. It sounds like he should be impeached, removed from office, and publicly shamed for his malfeasance.
What legal status do you support for gay couples?
Marriage 41%
None 36%
Civil unions 23%
Total Votes: 72,500
Rose Bird. This judge deserves the same treatment.
When does he come up for re-approval before the people again?
Yow!
The gays nearly hijacked this thread. 8-)
Re Judge Kramer:
Confucius say: Gay judge make gay rulings.
Remember this one?: Did you hear about the two queer judges? They tried each other! :-0
To the gay posters: Despite all your careful and self-serving reasonings, you cannot get past the word "marriage".
As has been mentioned often in this thread, marriage is an instutition, developed for good reasons over thousands of years all over the world. It is a respected institution by the entire world, except for homosexual activists.
Thus, you will never get support for your cause by those who believe in, and have lived their lives by, the institution of marriage.
Gay rights is not an institution. Its political history basically goes back to the Mattachine Society and later to Act Up. The rest of the gays stayed in the closet, because they felt despised by straight society. They were right to feel that. Public knowledge of gay activity came from police department arrests made in public restrooms, and observing the glory holes and the disgusting loiterers on occasion.
The reality is that your "institution" and the institution of marriage are mutually exclusive. What you want, you can't have, because you don't qualify.
Try as you might, you cannot separate your homosexuality from you being a "gay" human being who just wants to be equal. We both know that the majority of gays believe the "marriage" issue should not be a part of the "equality" argument.
Many do, as do I, agree that a civil union type of arrangement would work best. Two people in love should be able to have an official, sanctioned relationship, with full (AFAP) rights and privileges. But not, IMO and that of more than just a few others, if you insist on calling it "marriage".
Fighting for marriage rights wrecked the gay movement in this last election. Judge Kramer's decision has about the same effect as the SF mayor's did. Kramer's decision was a no-risk popularity grab to enhance his support with SF's large gay community.
It is not unusual for the news media to make such a big deal out of nothing -especially if the nothing is like a train wreck and sensationally homosexual in nature.
This news being trumpeted around the world is actually insignificant as the court ruling does nothing substantive toward advancing the cause to legitimate the illegitimate and will not stop the inevitable California constitutional ban or Federal Constitutional ban.
Activist Judge Richard Kramer said the state's historical definition of marriage cannot justify the denial of marriage licenses for homosexual couples. -shocking!
His ruling was in response to lawsuits filed last March by the city of San Francisco and several homosexual activist groups after the state supreme court stopped city officials from illegally issuing 'marriage' licenses to homosexuals. This Judge has now decided the existing California law that Mayor Gavin Newsome and his fellow homosexual activists defiantly violated is now suddenly unconstitutional?
Regardless of all the hype -this is just a bump in the road for Californians that are working to ban all homosexual 'unions' -this bump will likely embolden the banning effort further. A pair of bills now before the California legislature will put a constitutional amendment banning homosexual 'marriage' on the November ballot, which will put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.
Hmmm, San francisco?
Anyone wanna bet the judge is a bit limp wristed?